Where Ignorant Armies Clash By Night

[poliphilo]

The EU has a flag and a theme tune- and that's all. It's quite a good flag but it has never flown over a battlefield or marched in a victory parade and people have no emotional investment in it. The theme tune is as good as it gets- but it's not the EU's exclusive property; it's on loan from Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

For a wannabe superstate the EU has been very poor at branding itself. It has no character, no flavour. Proper states have figureheads, leaders, heroes, icons, uniforms, histories, traditions, mythologies- and the EU has none. It doesn't even have iconic buildings. The British State has the Houses of Parliament and various royal palaces, the USA has the Capitol building and the White House. Where does the EU hang out and conduct its business? Haven't the foggiest.

The coming wrangle over Britain's membership of the EU will be all about abstracts- about policies and budgets and quotas and political philosophies. Where names are invoked they will be faceless because the EU doesn't have easily identifiable chiefs or ideologues It's like the presiding authority in a Kafka novel; who's the King of the Castle? Nobody knows. For the average punter who thinks in terms of symbols and personalities (myself for instance) the debate is going to be very hard to follow. It'll be like watching a battle in the clouds between armies of ghosts.

Comments

[davesmusictank.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. The EU seems to be a faceless bureaucracy with no tangible leaders.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

There's a gulf between rulers and ruled. I've lived as a citizen of the EU for over 40 years- and still feel hardly any connection to it.

[resonant.livejournal.com]

I think this is actually a good thing.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

No, I can't agree. I think the people who are making the rules should be visible to those they're ruling

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

But they probably are visible, if you choose to look. I'm sure it's possible to go and attend the EU parliament or find their proceedings online somwhere. I agree with resonant that it's good that they're not charismatic leaders. It's more like a business and it run on businesslike lines.

The regions actually do very well financially out of EU funding and it's money that I'm pretty sure Westminster wouldn't give us if left to itself because though they are happy to pour billions into London, they resent every penny they spend in Wales or the North of England.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

So perhaps we should pay more attention to it- or our media should....

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Well, yes they should, but that doesn't attract clicks and increase readership and online advertising.

I have more or less lost all faith in the media. All they want is a dramatic story that will make their readers think, "Oh, how awful!" The boring day to day running of the EU is never going to attract their interest, unless it's a made up story about straight bananas or something equally untrue.

[matrixmann]

Yes, that's it. It never managed to carry you along with it.
And apart from being one big bureaucratic monster that it is - that it already was as only being the EC - that tries to rule things that are none of its business, worse than any Soviet block could ever be, it also only is in fact a torso democracy. The decisions and policies are made by a few EU Commissioners, the parliament only is entitled to nod or say no to it, it can't bring any in on its own - these are circumstances which you had shortly after the Europe-wide downing of the nobles and kings.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

People need to feel a connection to their rulers. I believe collapse is imminent.

[matrixmann]

I think that also killed France very many centuries ago, as the country had such a great extent that it literally was ungovernable because if once a letter had been sent out in one part of the country, it took months for it to arrive in Paris and the circumstances it was written in were not existant anymore.
Think that was under the reign of Charlemagne.
And even though you have new technologies today, the bureaucracy and the unwillingness of Brussels takes the same position as the physical limitation more than 1000 years ago. Something like that must go down.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

There are sorts of things that could bring the house down- economic collapse of member states- several of which are currently on the brink-, issues arising from the influx of refugees, a British exit...

[matrixmann]

Well, all those things are knives which the EU has been dancing on for years...
The only thing I find critical in this is: One may not like the EU, but what happens in higher politics if this alliance ends? They say, together the European states are a good driving force for goals throughout the world, no political dwarf you can ignore.
If they happen to part, this weight vanishes, and then it's only countries like the US, Russia, China and other alliances which didn't make the fault to create too much rules to follow around them. And this may lead to that the US becomes able again to drive its colonization politics forward in Europe in a much harder style than one had known throughout the years with the EU.
I'm still undecided over that opinion.

[ideealisme.livejournal.com]

There are good things about the EU. It introduces environmental rules that keep us honest - and given the sleeveens and cheats I share my country with that's a good thing. But doubtless it's quite corrupt and bloated itself.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are good things about the EU. I've often had cause to cheer the decisions of the Court of Human Rights.

[qatsi.livejournal.com]

Who do you trust more - Westminster or Brussels? For me they are about even, in fact perhaps I lean a bit more towards Brussels. Both are far from perfect. The Press is lazy on Europe (the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, for example) and it's an easy target, but (if we bother to vote) it has democratic elements. Are we really so different from the continentals? In his autobiography Heath makes it very clear that he knew full well about "ever closer union" and he certainly didn't think he'd misled anyone on that. Didn't we (by which I mean you) decide "once and for all" in 1975?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The thing about Westminster is we know who the bastards are and we've got a certain amount of oversight and can- sometimes- hold them to account. With Europe none of that applies.

I was an enthusiast for the EU until quite recently. Now I'm not so sure. Have I decided how I'll vote in the referendum? No, not yet.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I've never had any doubts about the way I'll vote, which is to stay in. For one thing, if the vote goes in favour of leaving the EU, it could be the end of the UK. Scotland and Wales could easily decide that they are better off as small independent countries that are part of Europe. London may be better off out (though dear old Boris hasn't made his mind up yet), but as I said above, the regions are better off in. It's only the financial sector that wants out, but they're no better than gambling casinos where they fiddle the stock market and some people make a killing. It's the ordinary person in the street who benefits from the EU, and sadly, many don't realise it and listen to the right wing so-called "newspapers" who tell them what to think.