h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Thanks, Astro, for your contribution on the EU. I'm quite surprised though that a researcher of your quality would perpetrate Eurosceptic myths - let me offer you an alternative... and this version, I'm afraid, will be extremely Eurocentric. I can come back with a few more internationalist views when I have more time(!)

The EU is a major experiment, and started with a commitment to peace. After the twentieth century on the European continent started with two amazingly huge wars, the like of which had not been seen before and which showed a few of the problems that nationalism and the rise of nation states can bring, politicians of the era (including the Americans who promoted the idea via the Marshall plan)decided that working together was the way to stop this, and the pooling of resources that produced weapons, such as coal and steel was a good start. 6 countries started it. If you're wondering why the UK wasn't in at the beginning, it still had delusions of empire...

As the ECSC and later the EEC flourished, and for various domestic reasons, other European countries joined. (The 12 stars on the flag symbolise perfection, by the way,not the number of member states, and was originally the flag of the Council of Europe, a completely different entity).

There is currently much debate on democracy in the EU: the directly elected Parliament would dearly love citizens to turn out and give them the legitimacy that is so desperately needed, and the Ministers who are elected in their Member States,who approve all decisions taken (not the supposed unelected bureaucrats who merely propose and draft texts just as civil services all across the earth do!)would be horrified to be thought undemocratic. The appointed Commissioners complicate the issue - perhaps direct elections would help legitimise them? Signor Prodi and the current series of Europe debates are the perfect fora for suggestions! Subsidiarity (one of those scary eurojargon words that means devolving decision-making to the lowest appropriate level)is supposed to help in this process bringing decision-making as close to real people as possible.

The EU is not perfect but it has great potential - it gives us a real possibility of balancing global markets, social rights for citizens, more effective environmental protection, and peace and stability (hence enlargement, where central and eastern European countries can also benefit). The euro (give it a chance, rather than damning it before notes and coins have even hit the streets)is not the be all and end all, but nevertheless can play a positive role and stop the waste caused by currency transactions.

The best thing about the EU is that it can be what its citizens want it to be - and that doesn't have to mean one big nation state, but perhaps something new that's a step beyond, and capable of taking on board the different world views so clearly seen at the G8/Genoa and other international gatherings recently. so in the spirit of H2G2 open your minds! Let's shape things the way we need them to be for the 21st century!

visit F19585?thread=98809 for a more open view

I also tend to see the EU in a positive light. The trouble I always have with anti-EU arguments is that, in Britain at least, they tend to be forwarded by people who fall prey to "Seplulveda's Inverse Law Of Patriotism". This law states simply that the less a person understands the history and culture of their own country, the more patriotic they are.
This is not to say that patriotism is a bad thing, on the contrary, it's just that most arguments used to support the "UK Indepence" viewpoint tend to display a staggering ignorance of Britain's past.
Some examples of this include;

1) "The Metric Martyrs". Do these people realise that when the Imperial Weights and Measures Act was introduced in 1824 it was so unpopular that the only way it could be enforced was by eventually stopping schools from teaching alternative systems?

2) "Lack Of Democracy In The EU". Yes, admittedly, there are problems with accountably within EU institutions, but I fail to see how this can worry Eurosceptic types since they appear to be wedded to a British system of government that incorporates an unelected second chamber.

3) "The Single Currency". I've never heard a valid argument against this. A single interest rate for Europe? No problem; if Wales and Cornwall can cope with an interest rate tailored to the needs of the South-East of England then I'm sure they will be able to cope with one designed for the rest of Europe as a whole.
Loss of control of our economy? Piffle; all our economic planners do at present is react to the vagaries of the international money markets anyway.
And besides, at present we use an erstwhile "controversial" single currency everyday; the pound. Do Eurosceptics really imagine that the Welsh and the Scots welcomed England's currency being foisted on them? Yet they seem quite happy with it now.

4) "The Loss Of Our Culture And Heritage". This is possibly the most laughable argument of all, usually forwarded by people whose concept of British culture is Eastenders, fish & chips and The Sun newspaper. Even those people who are slightly better informed tend to miss the point. Why should the music of Elgar, the plays of Shakespeare or the paintings of Hogarth disappear just because of European integration? Indeed, the biggest threat to our national culture comes not from the EU, but from America

5) "Britain Should Be An Independent Nation Again". Why? The once popular doctrine of sovreign nations led to war after war in Western Europe. Besides which, the EU is not the only supranational institution we are affiliated to; there's also the IMF, the World Bank, NATO and the UN to name but four. Yet I never hear any calls to withdraw from these institutions, possibly because the editors of The Sun and The Daily Mail realise that no extra newspapers can be sold on the back of this issue.

I could carry on all day on this topic, but I think that's enough for now.