Talk:Euroscepticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 picture 2 Terminology 3 The Tories 4 The British press 4.1 Removal of balance statement 5 British Justice vs Continental Justice 6 France 7 Sources of British euroskepticism 8 "Point out" vs "contend" 9 Lengthy quote about Hungary 10 Spelling 11 Denmark 12 Maintaining NPOV 13 Protestantism and Euroscepticism 14 NPOV: "but" vs "and" 15 Non-European Opinions? 16 Euro a failure? 17 Anne Enger Lahnstein 18 "British membership of the EEC was endorsed by 66% of voters." 19 Nordic Euroscepticism 20 Merge from Eurorealism 21 Merge from Euronaivism 22 Danish population 23 "Defence of Euroskepticism" 24 IPA 25 Into separate national articles 26 Imperial Party 27 Erroneous: UK fourth largest economy 28 Help stop EU banners populating Wikipedia 28.1 Help stop national banners populating Wikipedia?

[edit] picture

Very nice picture. LOL. -Pedro 18:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

What is this 'CEECs' ? Could you use full names instead of acronyms ? --Taw

Maybe "Communist Eastern European Countries" from the context? --rmhermen Hmm, I would rather guess it was something like "Central- and Eeastern- European Countries". Anyway, as it isn't clear I'm going to replace it. --Taw

Sorry, thats EU officialese... it stands for "Central and Eastern European Countries" (or possibly "Candidates", i'm not too sure)... what I meant by it was the 10 central and eastern european candidate countries... of course, there are the three other candidates (Cyprus,Malta,Turkey) as well, and the point applies to them as well -- so maybe it would be better to say "the candidate countries"... In fact, I think I'll change it... -- SJK

[edit] The Tories

Made a substantial set of edits aimed at taking the article back towards its ostensible subject, rather than a hostile commentary on the UK Conservative Party and its media allies. Placed in the middle of the article a blanket statement that Eurosceptics oppose a (carefully defined) Federal Europe. Without some unifying definition such as this, the concept of Euroscepticism is analytically suspect and an open invitation for people to play games of guilt by association. -- Alan Peakall 18:11 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Several paragraphs relating to the Conservative Party have just been excised from this page. Why is that? Mintguy 18:10, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)~

I don't know, but it looks to me that User:Stet might have a political agenda and is intent on changiong articles (this one and Eurozone, so far) to further it. Perhaps someone should re-insert the paragraphs about the Conservative party? -- Cabalamat 18:23, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I thought the paragraphs on the Conservative Party were biased and too indepth for an article not about them, thus I removed the offending articles. Though I agree with the single paragraph that has now appeared, as it sums up a political point of interest without going too much into it. Perhaps we could also have mention of other parts of the British political establishment that dont agree with the EU? -- User:Stet late at night, 9/9/03

it might have been biased, if it was then it needs NPOVing. Complaining that something's too in-depth seems rather strange to me - isn't Wikipedia supposed to create an in-depth encyclopedia? I agree that we should also mention euroscepticism in other UK parties, and the UKIP -- Cabalamat 19:17, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

i meant it was too indepth for the page, as the page is about euroscepticism, not the conservative party. it could have been npov'ed, and perhaps that is something i ought to have thought of doing. tho it looks as if someone has added a good paragraph to the end which is agreeable User:Stet 10/9 early morning

I'm going to restore the deleted paragraphs. Simply deleting the references to the Tories makes no sense and looks like censorship. Euroscepticism was a major factor in the last few years of the last Tory administration and was central to William Hague's policies when he was leader, and still has a large influence on the current leadership, not to mention the feeling at grass root level. If you feel that this information needs summarising then please edit what we already have. Do not simply expunge relevant material. The article is too short for you to make any claim about there being too much information. As for this being discussed on the page about the Conservative Party instead; that page should discuss the history of the party over centuries and not concentrate in depth on this subject. The link on the Euroscepticism on that page would lead you to beleive that the term's relevance the Tories would be discussed on the Euroscepticism page, and so it should be. Mintguy 08:14, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

do as you please, im sure you will. when i first came across the article i thought it was very pov. the first few paragraphs made good sense, but the article soon descended into an attack on the british media being xenophobic (which is a curiosity for it ignores sections of the media that arent xenophobic and it suggests that only british media is xenophobic. foreign examples please), and then a rant on why the conservatives wont win an election because some of them are eurosceptic. there is much need for npov. - User:Stet early afternoon, 10/9

If you thought the article was POV when you started editing it, you should take a look at the way it was before my two edits of a year ago. I may have been overcautious about redressing bias then, but I think the comparison of correlation of political orientation with Euroscepticism between the UK and Sweden merits putting back. -- Alan Peakall 14:43, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That looked awful! Someone really had it in for the Conservatives. I truly think that such indepth talk shouldn't be there, but rather a short paragraph and links to the respective parties. That's why I deleted those last three paragraphs (yes, three whole paragraphs on the Conservative Party!). I reckon Mintguy has me down as some agenda pushing Conservative. Sure I'm eurosceptic, but (shock horror) I vote Liberal Democrat. - stet 15:39, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would disagree with you about Mintguy's state of mind. I have seen him remedy a large enough number of instances of Tory bashing to be confident that he can understand the provocation here. The fact that No Campaign apparently persisted for three months in the shape in which you found it points to the weakness of WP in this area. There is a lot of POV that needs to be balanced and contextualised. Sometimes a case for removing material arises, but if an NPOVing effort starts out by adding material it usually goes faster add attracts cooperation, even it does result in chimera-like interim versions of an article. -- Alan Peakall 15:53, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

FWIW I vote Liberal Democrat too, but that's more to do with where I live than a political conviction. Stet: I've not made any judgements or comments about your political views, but deleting a swath of relevant information in this article looked like censorship. I asked you both here and on your talk page why you deleted it, and as far as I was concerend the answer didn't justify the action, so I restored it. Other than that I've made no contribution to this article or comment about its content. Mintguy 16:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry we have gotten off on the wrong foot. It was rash of me to delete those paragraphs in the way that I did. I ought to have made an effort to change them for the better or discuss them first. I am sorry for being destructive rather than consructive.

Though I still maintain there is too much indepth information on the Conservative Party on the page. The article would be far too long if we had three paragraphs on every political party that is mainly or wholly eurosceptic. I only think that a short paragraph and a link would be better in order to keep the information better distributed. - stet 16:45, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But Euroscepticism hasn't had the same influence on any major party in quite the same was as it has of the Tories. Major called the sceptics in his cabinet the "bastards". The party came close to splitting on the issue (probably would have if Ken Clark had been elected leader). William Hague lost an election and then his job, because he thought the most important issue to the electorate was keeping the pound. Mintguy 17:08, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that Euroscepticism is a major part of the Conservative Party. I suppose this is another point of view issue, but then politics is apt to be this way. Labour and even Liberal Democrats have their issues over Europe, as I have at least tried to address with one paragraph. And also there should be information about foreign political parties that are Eurosceptic. The second part reads like a diatribe against the Conservative Party, not as a balanced article on Euroscepticism. There is not even any plus points noted anywhere. It is very negative. - stet 17:28, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eh? You must be living on another planet. Admittedly the Tories don't get much press these days. Do you know about the Bruges Group? Do you know that chairman Norman Lamont is currently in Sweden arguing against the Euro? What about Monday club. What about Conservatives Against a Federal Europe (CAFE). The leadership is still dead against the Euro. Iain Duncan Smith gave a speech in Prague a few where he reiterated the Tories position on the Euro. Mintguy 22:03, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You seem to know alot about it, maybe you could write an article? If there is as much as you say there is on the subject, it certainly deserves to have space of its own. I'm afraid I only know about Conservative policies on local issues. I yet maintain that those paragraphs are too much for the article, I suppose the only way I can prove it is to write similar paragraphs on other parties and their eurosceptic members. - stet 23:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Mintguy that Euroscepticism is a major plank of UK Conservative Party policy, indeed now that UK Labour Party has aped most of the policies that the party developed during the Thatcher area, it is one of the few key policy areas that seems to be capable of producing real electoral dividends for the party (though the rise of UKIP as a political force has somewhat taken the shine of their Europsceptic policy). There are Europhiles within the party (such as Kenneth Clarke) but they are few and far between and these days they are very much seen as minority players on the fringes of the party. IMHO - the drift towards Euroscepticism (some would go further and say outright hostility to the EU) has been consistent and maintained throughout the Hague, Duncan-Smith, and Howard leaderships. Nick Fraser 07:07, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The British press

some newspapers are perceived to be Eurosceptic and have been known to publish many perceived anti-EU stories

These are weasel words. Come on... we know who we're talking about here. No need to be beat around the bush. Mintguy 16:34, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it is called NPOV. Perhaps we could name some papers instead? We ought to differentiate between euroscepticism and xenophobia though. - stet 16:45, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No. It's not NPOV it's using weasel words that end up saying nothing. I could just as easily write "some newspapers are perceived to be written by chimpanzees and have been known to publish many perceived anti-gorilla stories". Can that be denied? The fact is there ARE British papers that consistently publish anti-EU stories and it is well known. It is nothing to do with anyone's individual perception of the newspaper or the story. Mintguy 16:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I agree that a paper can be Eurosceptic, but the stories it publish can only be 'perceived' to be anti-EU. If a story that cast the EU in a bad light were published, the paper could be said to be eurosceptic, but the story must only be 'perceived' anit-EU if it is true.

How can I put this better? If I said 'snakes are poisonous, they can kill' it would be a far fetch to call me anti-snake just because I publish what is true. I shall remove the first 'perceive'. - stet 17:02, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well it's the spin put on a story and also blatant untruths. - e.g. from [1]

Daily Express, 21 January 2003, page 21

A village has been ordered to pull down its playground swings because they are too tall. An edict from Brussels states that the height of children’s swings must be no more than three metres.

Reality: No-one has been ordered to remove their playground swings by the EU. The non-mandatory measure referred to here has nothing to do with the EU – it is an instrument of the European Standardisation Committee, and was adopted as a British Standard some years ago.

Untruths are one thing, truthful reporting is another. I can't let the snake be angry at me for letting others know of its poison. Look at it this way, if you said 'the House of Lords is anachronistic and undemocratic', I would agree with you and consider it truthful criticism, others though may consider you anti-British. It all depends on the listeners Point Of View, and I can't let you call a newspaper story anti-EU simply because it tells the truth.

Can we also get rid of the part about xenophobia? That is a different thing altogether, though I agree some tabloids are awfull (Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror). - stet 17:20, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eh? The Daily Mirror is europhile!

---

I find the part on the British tabloids to be very weasely. That those tabloids publish blatant untruths on the EU is a *fact*. Of course, most if not all newspapers publish things that are inaccurate or lacking in research, but here they do so consistently, usually with indignant and often misleading comments.

We could also signal the prominent role that Rupert Murdoch plays and the fact that The Sun is one of the few major newspapers in Europe that uses slurs to call the citizens of the neighbouring countries or insults their heads of state. David.Monniaux 11:41, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Notwithstanding all the discussion above, this page has clearly been worked on a great deal and the result is a good one. As a newcomer to the page, I'm impressed, overall, with the way the current incarnation handles some politically sensitive and potentially controversial subjects while generally staying on the right side of NPOV. It remains neutral while also managing to be judiciously informative. A refreshing example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work! Toby W 12:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That said, I am about to do some restructuring edits... :o) Toby W

I haven't looked at this article in a while. I can't believe how wishy washy it now is.Mintguy (T)

Well, for once I don't agree with you! I don't have that problem with it at all (and fwiw I'm about as far from being eurosceptic as it's possible to be!). Perhaps you could point out what you'd like to change? Toby W 17:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it's the weasel terms that are used throughout. But most glaringly in the section on the UK and the Tories in particular. e.g.

"In one case, the UK Conservative Party has apparently been riven by strife over Europe since the 1970s."

- Apparently. Bloody hell yes.

"Many commentators believe this to be an important reason why the conservatives lost the British General Election of 2001."

- Er... well William Hague banging on about "Saving the Pound" as if it was the only issue of interest to people didn't help much for sure. Anyone dispute this?

"Other commentators argue that the British electorate was more strongly influenced by domestic social policy issues than by European affairs." ::Yes well that was the bloody point wasn't it. Hague chanting - "Save the Pound" wasn't influencing peoples opinions one whit. They had to change tack halfway through the election.

Toby, if you are about to do a major edit, please get rid of these weasel terms like "apparently" and "perceived" and "some commentators say"; it sucks. Mintguy (T) 18:35, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

David.Monniaux - I couldn't agree more with you, it's a simple fact that tabloids like The Sun use racist slurs against other countries. But the thing is that not everyone agrees, so to stay on the right side of NPOV we do still have to include the "it is often claimed that" phrase, however strongly we both feel that it's just obvious. The article as it stands does add that most eurosceptics (and pro-Europeans, of course) disassociate themselves from the remarks. I think that's suitably NPOV. What do you reckon? Toby W 23:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that the fact that some people deny the obvious is not enough to justify using weaselspeak - after all, there probably are people denying that the earth is round. The Sun uses xenophobic slurs, that's a *fact*, and an encyclopedia must report facts, however unflattering. What may be argued upon is whether they do so in jest, in bad taste, or in a conscious desire to influence politics. This is, of course, a largely speculative question unless we can back up any affirmation on this with quotes from the management of those newspapers; but it's not relevant at this point, because we don't make such affirmations. David.Monniaux 06:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear sir I have removen the word 'accuse' from the sentence about British tabloids and xenophobia. You can only accuse someone of a crime. Xenophobia, like rank hypocrisy, may be wrong but it is not a crime.

That's not what Webster says, for it admits the meaning of "To charge with a fault; to blame". WordNet says "blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior". David.Monniaux 20:44, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well done. I also have a dictionary. 195.92.168.171 20:54, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The word 'label' is better suited to this sentence as proven by the article on xenophobia which states: '3. The word Xenophobic is often used as a political insult against Racists, Isolationists, and Nationalists.' If you wish to claim that eurosceptic tabloids are any of these things then do so. But provide evidence. 195.92.168.171 20:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a citation for the Tony Blair Quote? I'd really like something on the subject. klaustus

[edit] Removal of balance statement

I removed this addition:

In fact, the British press is unusually balanced in its coverage of Europe - at both ends of the market, there are a similar number of Europhile and Eurosceptic titles. On the continent, the press tends to be monolithically pro-Brussels. Denmark, for example, has 42 daily papers, all of which have a pro-European slant.

I don't know about Denmark, but I can't see how the assertion of balance between europhile and eurosceptic press in Britain can be justified. Duncan Keith 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. In Ireland all newspapers are generally pro-EU. This doesn't mean that they are unbalanced. They critise the EU regularly on specific issues. All Irish papers are also pro-Ireland and I assume all British papers are pro-Britian. Does this make them unbalanced? Seabhcán 08:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with the removal, but think something else should be there instead. It's true that there are a number of pro-European and anti-European titles in the UK, but in terms of readership, more than three quarters of the press is heavily anti-EU. If I can find some decent stats, I think we should add that information instead. Wombat 08:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Stats on this might be quite hard to find. I've just e-mails the European Commission's UK press office - its a place to start looking. I'll post any replys here. Seabhcán 10:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I've got those stats. Here are the readership figures for the national press: [2]. And here are some very rough calculations: We can divide the newspapers fairly roughly into 2 categories, generally positive and generally negative. In the former category we have Express & Sunday Express, Times & Sunday Times, Star & Sunday Star, News of the World, Scotsman, Mail & Mail on Sunday, Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph, and the Sun. in the latter category we have Mirror & Sunday Mirror, FT, Indy, Grauniad & Observer. (Any more?) Categorising by readership, then, this puts 80% of the media (17.5m readers) in the eurosceptic camp, the remaining 20% (4.5m) in the pro-EU camp. Wombat 12:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How are you defining eurosceptic? Seabhcán 14:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well now, here we come to the sticking point, because of course I don't have any good definition of eurosceptic except my own impressions of what I've read. Personally, I would count a paper as eurosceptic if it regularly puts a negative spin on stories about the EU, but who decides what counts as a 'negative spin' and what's just 'honesty in reporting'? That, I suppose, is the problem with trying to give statistics for what is essentially a subjective judgement.

Plus, there's some overlap. Some papers I put on the pro side (e.g. FT) employ sceptic correspondents and do still publish articles frequently attacking some EU measure or other. And some papers that are very definitely on the anti side occasionally write nice things, or at least neutral things, about Europe - sometimes even including the Telegraph.

Add to that the fact that it's much harder to draw a definite judgement with the so-called 'quality press' than it is with the tabloids (because only the tabloids are often caught expressing an out-and-out opinion, rather than just subtly spinning their stories), and the whole situation is a bit of a mess really.

How would you define eurosceptic? :o) Wombat 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What you've said above seems reasonable, but I'm also not sure how to define it. I'd prefer to get a definition from an outside source, such as the European Commission. Then we can simply quote them, and its NPOV. ;-) Seabhcán 19:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a fair few people would take issue with the fact that a definition from the European Commission would be NPOV! :o) Wombat 08:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

True. But I presume that the eurosceptic press don't define themselves as eurosceptic. They say they're honestly reporting. So defining a paper as eurosceptic is POV so we need to quote someone doing it. The EC is on the other side of the arguement. Seabhcán 08:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. As long as we phrase it appropriately, it'll be fine. Wombat 09:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Justice vs Continental Justice

[3] is fairly clear: "The European legal area would involve sweeping away the existing criminal justice systems of the Member States. Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus would be abolished and with them our ancient freedoms, to be replaced by an inquisitorial system based on the tyrannical Napoleonic Code. The presumption of innocence would become worthless and every man, woman and child in the country, guilty or innocent, would become liable to be arrested at the whim of the European Public Prosecutor.".

This paragraph clearly shows that the Anti Common Market League believes that European systems of justice are based on an alleged tyrannical Napoleonic Code that does not honor presumption of innocence. This is fact, please stop removing this fact from the article. David.Monniaux 23:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that is what the article says. But you have chosen the article to suit your bias. This Anti Common Market League is a fringe group which I never before have heard of.

You have set up this logical path: eurosceptics are against law harmonization -> eurosceptic group x argues that european law is inferior as it does not have presumption of innocence -> european law codes do' have presumption of innocence -> eurosceptic group x is wrong -> eurosceptics are wrong. Great, except for that it does not actually convey the majority view of eurosceptics that whatever the differences in the law codes, there is little point in harmonization of law.

It is not only the difference between facts and non-facts that determine the NPOV of an article, but also the inclusion or exclusion of facts. Hence, by including the views of a fringe group in order to tarnish the reputation of the mainstream, you are POV. 195.92.168.175 19:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

House of Commons Hansard "I am concerned that, if we are not careful about the wording of this Bill, someone who has not been charged with any crime will have his or her passport confiscated. We must never forget that, despite the European Union and Napoleonic law--which, thank God, we have not had to adopt in this country so far--one is innocent until proven guilty in the United Kingdom. In France--the country nearest to our borders--one is considered guilty until proven innocent. That is a fundamental difference. We must not allow the Bill to encroach on that right, no matter how well meaning this legislation may seem."

This person is not from a fringe group, but from the British legislature. David.Monniaux 20:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, three points I need to make. First, Euroscepticism really isn't about the relative merits of either one system of justice or another. This debate was/is taking place in many different areas, even within the UK before the EU was conceived. I am glad you have provided a better, though not much, source of quote (even though it isn't about europe per se, only the myth).

My point was that there is a striking pattern (not only from this quote, but from others) in the British political debate of making disparaging comments about the neighbouring countries, often with little actual fact, so as to push the notion that Britain is obviously superior and should not compromise itself by meddling with inferior cultures. I think we have a fairly good example of such behavior here. Such argumentation is fairly commonplace in British populist euroscepticism. David.Monniaux 22:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you're somehow pushing POV by removing the "stupidest" side of British Euroscepticism. Yes, there is intelligent criticism of EU institutions (and the UK does not have a monopoly on it). Yes, there is also a lot of "mythology" and smugness on the part of some British eurosceptics. Should we give a rosy picture and remove annoying behaviors such as the one I quoted? David.Monniaux 23:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved the paragraph to the "British Euroscepticism" section (because, indeed, it's more a British-specific issue than an Eurosceptic issue in general). Does the current formulation suit you? I don't think I'm applying POV, just stating the facts about a very vocal current of British politics inside Parliament. David.Monniaux 06:15, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Next, my point: ...the majority view of eurosceptics [is] that whatever the differences in the law codes, there is little point in harmonization of law. is about the EU harmonizing laws and systems of justice throughout the EU without either debate or reason. The UK will lose its system whether it likes it or not, and this (euphemistic 'harmonization') is the lack of choice and centralizing eurosceptics wish to avoid.

I personally don't see why the UK should lose its system. Do you? David.Monniaux 22:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thirdly, a point on the inquisitorial system itself. Though many people do repeat the myth about 'presumption of innocence' (which is a right of man), their concerns are rather with a lack of neutrality. An evidence collecting judge cannot possibly be trusted to find all of the pertinent evidence. The lines of investigation he follows can only be based upon how he interpreted the last piece of evidence collected. He must decide if evidence is important, but if he discards important evidence, it will never be followed. Or even worse, if previous evidence allows him to build a view that the defendent is either innocent or guilty, then from that point on, lines of enquiry turn to collecting evidence to reinforce that. 195.92.168.167 22:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's why the judge is not left alone: defense attorneys have access to his files, may file motions of procedure, may request additional enquiries, and may appeal all the judge's decisions before a division of the court of appeals. That's also why the investigating judge does not judge the case himself.

In essence, the inquisitorial system is about taking the leadership in investigations away from the police (which responds to the executive and may have political reasons for rushing to grab a suspect) and give it to more independent people. David.Monniaux 22:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] France

On the right, Jean-Marie Le Pen (National Front) and Philippe de Villiers are eurosceptic.

I haven't been following French politics, but is Le Pen a right-wing politician, I thought he was a radical supporter of protectionism and state intervensionism.

Le Pen is generally counted as "extreme-right", and Villiers is certainly right-wing. Le Pen's economic policies, shall we say, are not extremely coherent. He's in favor of protectionism, withdrawal from the Euro, but also in favor of diminishing the number of government workers (while at the same time increasing the number of policemen) and reducing taxes.

Le Pen started his career under Pierre Poujade and still has this thing about defending the "little guys" (i.e. farmers, small shop owners, artisans, etc...).

Besides, being in favor of protectionism and state interventionism is not contradictory with being right-wing. The differences are elsewhere (to caricature, the right spends on the military and police, the left on education). David.Monniaux 08:35, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of British euroskepticism

I largely copyedited User:Thewikipedian's changes (and I still think there are two many "strenghten" here and there). I disagree with his affirmation that Britain did not insist on joining the EEC: evidently, the British government made repeated bid for joining, and this definitely counts as "insisting" (now, of course, one may argue that Britain designates the country, and that, in that case, the British government did not represent the ideas of its own people; is that the case?).

I softened the allegation that "most people in the UK feel they do not have...". Such statements should be backed with polls, otherwise they may simply reflect the wishful thinking of some people who claim their opinion is a majority opinion. I'd be happy to reinstate the original formulation if somebody could point to serious polls on the issue. David.Monniaux 14:18, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I didn't like the word "insist", as it portraied the UK as country that was almost "begging" to join, which was not the case. The goverment thought that membership was good for the country, but the British economy was doing fine outside the EEC.

Of course, submiting several times an aplication to join could be considered as "insisting on becoming a member". But then, this could apply to Norway, which has applied twice, but has failed to join due to popular opposition.

Regarding the statement that"most people in the UK feel they do not have..."? I am pretty sure that I did not write that.

Sorry about the abuse of "strengh". I will watch out next time.[user:thewikipedian|thewikipedian]

[edit] "Point out" vs "contend"

It seems to me that "point out" implies an endorsement (if X points out Y, it means that Y is true and X is just merely showing the truth to people who may not have known it) while "contend" does not (if X contends Y, it means that Y is X's opinion).

The article should not be written in a way that endorses any particular subjective point of view, especially if it includes exaggerations. David.Monniaux 14:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out (rather than contend) that you make a very good point. :o) Toby W 08:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy quote about Hungary

The following paragraph was added by an anonymous contributor today:

Some Romanians, Slovaks and Croatians claim that the irredentism of Hungary has found a new platform built by the European Union in Eastern Europe. Alleged irredentist Hungarian politicians (among them Viktor Orban, ex-prime-minister) are claimed to be helped by European regulations in involving themselves in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries. The main practice denounced is that Hungary is trying use the legitimate concept of ethnical minority rights in order to promote various forms (mostly subtle) of revanchism in the region. The claim is supported by Hungary's amending the status law trying to redefine the idea of nation and extending special economic, social and cultural benefits to ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring states (Romania, Slovakia, Croatia and Ukraine), who had objected to the law in 2001. The EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) was called in by Romania and criticised the Hungarian initiative. However, this did not stop Hungary from pursuing its intentions which, in the opinion of affected Eastern Europeans, is another proof of Europe's inability to handle the ethnical nationalism in Eastern Europe.

I don't know enough about the issues to judge the accuracy or NPOV-ness of this, but my query is whether it really belongs here? Should we condense it to a single sentence or two and include a link to an article elsewhere? This seems to be rather a lot of specific local political detail to include in a section on euroscepticism in general. Toby W 08:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

For Heaven's sake, what is "Euroscepticism"? Can't anyone spell "skepticism" anymore? Update: I've moved the whole damn thing to the (correct) spelling and probably made a right mess of a number of redirect pages. I've done my best to dot i's and cross t's, but please keep a look out. --Liveforever 21:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You arrogantly think that it's spelt wrong? Guess you don't get around much, because the British spell the word "scepticism." This is a European phenomenon, and the British spelling "scepticism" is just as valid as the preferred American "skepticism." This page has been spelled with the British spelling since its inception. Leave the article alone. Wikipedia has a policy over unnecessary bickering over British vs. American spellings, quickly saying "leave it as it is." You're the only one who has been inclined to arrogantly change it to suit your American suitabilities. Yes, I am an American, but respect this small cultural difference. I have reverted back most (if not all) of your changes. Continuing to do so could get you blocked if it angers the right people. —ExplorerCDT 22:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not American, I am European. I do "get around much" - I've probably travelled more than you ever will. And you have displayed all the grace and wit of a raging elephant in a china shop. Regardless of what the Wiki article says on Skepticism, "scepticism" is not the sole accepted Commonwealth spelling. Check any British dictionary, and you will find that both "scepticism" and "skepticism" are correct. I happen to prefer the latter, since it satsifies both UK and US spellings - moreover, it more closely adheres to the Greek etymology of the word (from skeptikos). I suspect that such subtleties are wasted on you, however. --Liveforever 23:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Son, I've been in 62 countries, and stepped foot on all 7 continents, if you do not consider that well-travelled, then that's your problem. And, being rather proficient in the classical languages, and linguistics, I am very familiar with the etymological cradle of the word. But what you did was edit an article that has been—since its inception—spelled consistently with "scepticism"—that is rash, and wrong. I accept there are two valid spellings, but what you did was without consensus and without reservation. If the consensus (were you to have sought one) had turned your way, I wouldn't have minded, but you (not me) arrogantly walked on the scene with the bravura of a elephant in a china shop. Just because you "prefer" the spelling with a "k" doesn't mean that you have a right to completely rip through an article just to satisfy your fetish. —ExplorerCDT 00:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. While the Greek is σκεπτικοσ, from σκεπτεσθαι, the Latin (which has had an undoubtedly greater influence on English) is Scepticus. So take your pick, just don't edit it again without a consensus, or you're asking for trouble. —ExplorerCDT 00:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Euroscepticism is most often referred to in the context of the UK's general attitude towards Europe - so I think for the majority of interested readers the 'c' spelling on the main page makes more sense than using the 'k' spelling. For those who might search using the 'k' spelling, a redirect is set up from Euroskepticism - so surely everybody's happy and can appreciate that there are many correct spellings of particular words. I frequently read Wikipedia pages where I see spellings that I don't consider standard to my particular flavour of English - so let's be flexible and stay calm. I agree with Explorer CDT that it's generally polite to seek consensus before making large scale major changes to a page. Nick Fraser 06:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow, i go away for one day and look what happens! :o) Seriously - although the redirect solution should please everyone, the good old Google test is very revealing: "Eurosceptic" and "Euroscepticism" total about 102,000 hits; "euroskeptic" and "euroskepticism" total about 4,400, which is about 4% of the former. (And that's worldwide google.com, not .co.uk .)

And for what it's worth, I really think there's no need for such phrases as "I suspect that such subtleties are wasted on you" - especially over such a minor question as spelling - and especially when the "subtlety" in question is based on a linguistic error, namely taking one transliteration of Greek script to Roman script as canonical. Tsk. Toby W 22:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark

Perhaps someone with a better knowledge than I of the situation in Denmark could check Peregrin982's recent contribution on the subject? I suspect there might be one or generalisations that could do with toning down or NPOVing, but I'm no expert. Wombat 16:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (living some 20 kilometers East of Denmark, and frequently following Danish radio and television), it's factually correct, although I miss a reference to the Danes' long experience of living in the shadow of the numerous, expansionist and bellicose Germans. The fear for the Germans, although considerably less outspoken today than 20 or 40 years ago, is a recurrent theme in the world view of many common Danes, as it appears in everyday table conversations.

However, I can not judge the language usage. Nuances in English is a too complicated matter, to be left to ESL writers. :-)

--Johan Magnus 17:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maintaining NPOV

Most of Pcpcpc's recent changes are good ones but I've modified a couple today, and thought I should explain why in case these are controversial.

First: Pcpcpc replaced 'Pro-European' with 'Europhile' in a few places, and I've reverted since 'Europhile', like 'Europhobe', is regarded as pejorative. There is a good discussion of these distinctions at Pro-European and also at Terminology.

Second: Pcpcpc spotted some POV stuff in the British press section, and deleted it. I've restored it, but NPOVed. As a rule, it's good to have information about the arguments advanced by both sides, pro and anti, as long as these are clearly labelled as arguments and not presented as bare facts. (Simply deleting all the arguments on one side because one does not agree with them is not in the spirit of NPOV.)

All opinions and feedback welcome - suggest posting here for discussion before undoing either of our changes! Wombat 12:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protestantism and Euroscepticism

I added a couple sentences near the beginning about how traditionally Protestant countries in Europe seem more reluctant to accept the EU. I've witnessed this in person; in the Netherlands, I met people who continued to use the old Dutch guilder at local markets because the euro is "Catholic money." I was told that this practice goes on in parts of some other Northern European countries.

User:69.47.102.177 05:19, 14 Feb 2005 

Interesting theory. As far as I understand, this is rather a new theory, which is why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

Nice try!

--Johan Magnus 05:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly new theory. I've read about the 12 stars on the EU being an allegory the Virgin Mary ever since the flag was introduced. In fact, here's a little blurb I found from the Economist magazine:

"The European flag of 12 yellow stars on a blue background also owes something to Catholicism. Arsene Heitz, who designed it in 1955, recently told Lourdes magazine that his inspiration had been the reference in the Book of Revelation, the New Testament's final section, to “a woman clothed with the sun...and a crown of twelve stars on her head." (The Economist, October 28, 2004) [1] (http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3332056)

User:69.47.102.177 06:22, 14 Feb 2005 

The stared flag "resented by some Protestants" being perceived as a symbol for Catholicism. And this causes Euroscepticism due to fear of a Catholic reconquest? --Johan Magnus 06:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Johan. The theory that the EU flag has its roots in Catholicism is not new, but the theory that Protestantism is linked to euroscepticism, while intriguing, doesn't belong here unless there are some independent sources that develop it. Wombat 09:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Same for me. David.Monniaux 10:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The EU flag was designed by Gerard Slevin not Arsene Heitz. Seabhcán 12:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The book The Principality and Power of Europe by Adrian Hilton is hostile to the EU on Protestant grounds and claims that the Roman Catholic Church is a driving force behind integration and 'ever closer union'. It's claims were endorsed by Lord Tonypandy, Lord Harris of High Cross, Sir Richard Body MP and Martin Howe QC. - Johnbull 15:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link to Religious opposition to the EU. A religious magazine distributed in 'major grocery stores and supermarket chains in 89 Northeast Ohio cities' hardly seems an authoritative source on euroscepticism. Duncan Keith 04:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV: "but" vs "and"

The current version of "Eurosceptic attitudes in the UK today" uses the word "but" as follows: "does not feel well informed about the proposed new European constitution but are evenly split on whether to adopt it;"

An earlier version did the same. To my ear the word "but" implies a judgement that "and" doesn't. This is a lot less pronounced in the current version, yet even so there is still the ghost of a suggestion that the stated opinion is invalid. Does anyone have any thoughts on using "and" instead, or perhaps separating the two statements?

Interesting point. I agree "but" implies a judgement. However, I don't think that judgement is biased - after all, surely both sides of the argument would agree that an opinion on a subject is rather less useful if even the person who holds the opinion admits that they are relatively ignorant of the subject? Still, I have no objection to substituting "and", if you prefer. Unless there are other objections, I suggest you go ahead and make the change.

By the way, please sign your posts so we know who we're talking to :o) - just type three tildes at the end of your message and the software will fill it in automatically for you. Wombat 13:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for explaining about post signing, I made the mistake of assuming it was automatic and not checking. 80.41.201.105

[edit] Non-European Opinions?

What do countries beyond the borders of the European area feel? I can only assume that Euroskepticisim is akin to the way many Americans feel about the UN.

The EU can be looked at in the same was as the UN, is it power-hungry and land grabbing, or benign? That said, is it valid to be a Euroskeptic without being immediately subject to EU legally? Look as Microsoft, as an interesting example (not completely exemplary, but a good example nonetheless.) --JD 02:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Euro a failure?

Can someone explain to me why the Euro is considered a failure in the UK? Just today, Kenneth Clarke, who is a contester for the leadership of a national party, anounced that it had been a mistake for him to have backed the euro because it is a 'failure'. [4] What is meant by that? In the UK, I've heard the argument that the single interest rate is bad, yet Scotland and the north of England have long been crippled by having a single interest rate with the south of England - a quite different economy. Please help a confused foriegner! Seabhcán 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a disinterested observer would conclude that the Euro has failed as a currency. It's been stable and is starting to rival the US dollar as the default international currency, but it hasn't had the dramatic effect on policies in the Euro zone that the British centre-right hoped. Clarke said "I thought it would lead to increased productivity, efficiency and living standards and stimulate policy reforms. On that front so far it has been a failure." [5] I expect his change of heart has to do with political expediency. Europe is the issue that has riven the Conservatives for over a decade and the Eurosceptic majority in that party cannot countenance the idea of a successful Euro or a leader too sympathetic towards it. Duncan Keith 13:57:36, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Enger Lahnstein

A noted Norwegian eurosceptic during the Treaty of Maastricht negotiations was Anne Enger Lahnstein, representing Senterpartiet.

Why is this more relevant that the dozens of other Eurosceptic politicians in other countries? I suggest it be removed. Gerry Lynch 15:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "British membership of the EEC was endorsed by 66% of voters."

This claim is misleading and wrong. 67.2% of those who voted supported membership, not 67.2% of those allowed to vote. The turnout was only 64.5% and therefore less than 50% of the electorate voted to remain in the EEC and even less to leave. - Johnbull 15:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Misleading, I agree - but surely ambiguous, not wrong? "Voters" could mean "those who voted" or "those eligible to vote". Instead, it should say "those who voted". I'll make that change. Wombat 15:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes I guess it could be interpreted in many ways. - Johnbull

The same pro-euro lie was repeated in the case of the Latvian referendum concerning the EU. The percentages were nearly the same as in the UK case (about 65% voted, of which about 65% voted "for EU"), resulting in CLEARLY LESS THAN 50% of the eligible electorate backing the EU thing. The next day, the official media (mostly fat-cat owned) trumpeted tastelessly about their "overwhelming victory"; it was sad to watch such a bias in the media (including the BBC). The EU thus cheats us with simple maths.

[edit] Nordic Euroscepticism

It is notable that a number of the Nordic countries are not members, and/or have had Eurosceptic incidents. I think that a discussion of these collectively would be worthwhile, although Greenland is slightly different, being non-European to begin with. --MacRusgail 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Its really a north european thing, excluding Ireland and Finland. Seabhcán 21:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Kind of, but I feel that Scandinavia, plus Iceland, the Faroes, Aland islands etc represent a kind of collective rejection that may partly be due to their pan-Nordic connections, e.g. Nordic council etc. Also, there should be something about the various dependencies such as Aland and Faroe, not to mention the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Madeira, Canaries, which are outside the EU for their own reasons, while their connected states are full EU members. --MacRusgail 15:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Eurorealism

Agree - all articles of the same stripe of views should be in one article with only in depth sections being break-away articles.--jrleighton 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Euronaivism

Agree - all articles of the same stripe of views should be in one article with only in depth sections being break-away articles.--jrleighton 11:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - unless I am misreading the article, Euronaivism appears to be a term of abuse coined by eurosceptics to describe europhiles, ie. the exact opposite of euroscepticism Sceptic 19:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish population

I feel that this article makes a conclusion on Danish "enthusiasm" on European initiatives that is not founded in fact. In Denmark, as in most countries, there is a left wing and a right wing opposition on EU. What I would think the data suggests is that the left wing is sceptical about any development in EU, whereas the right wing opposition has only been effective since around the Maastricht Treaty. This does not mean that the left wing is more sceptical of new European initiatives, but since the EU as such is traditionally rejected on the left wing, it is rather a novelty that the left wing supports any vote on EU, and their voters haven't followed the parties as of yet.

The six results from Danish votes about EU were:

• 1973: Memership 63.4% yes
• 1986: "EC-package", 56.2% yes
• 1992: Maastricht, 49.3 yes (fell)
• 1993: Maastricht + Edinbourgh, 56.7% yes
• 1998: Amsterdam, 55.1% yes
• 2000: Euro: 46.8% yes (fell)

It is hard to trace "enthusiasm" in any of these results, I would say.

Given the last result, it is very hard to say that changes of an economic nature generally are well seen upon in Denmark.

The latter paragraph in the article very much ignore the general opposition to what is percieved by many to be a large, unflexible system. The safety net and the value of "smallness" is only part of the picture, a lot of the opposition is about the construction of what is percieved as a large, unnessecairy bureaucracy.

Oh, just for good measure, I am myself a Danish left-wing federalist, rather a small group. --Jakob mark 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Defence of Euroskepticism"

What is the purpose of this paragraph? It gives the impression that Euroskepticism is not a "proper" view to be held, and hence must be defended, the paragraph alleges, but Euroskeptics arguing that they are not really against the EU. Is there a "Defence of Socialism" in the socialism article or a "Defence of capitalism" in the capitalism article? Surely the article should simply set out what Euroskeptics believe and allow those views to stand on their own feet.

[[ NPOV]]

Hi not sure if I should put this on the talk, or the discussion page, what's the difference?

"After decades of anti-racist campaigns, it became acceptable again to be against foreigners."

Does this seem POV to anyone else?

"Agitated European politicians regarded the support of Dutch politicians for the anti-European sentiments of their population as an uncooperative Calvinist attitude. Most Dutch people support the European Union, but are against too much power for the European institutions."

Now this has got to be POV. I haven't made any edits to the main article (except for disputing the neutrality, i think i put the sign in the wrong place), I want to see what other people think, but there is not one citation (that I can see) in this entire article, and that Calvinist assertion seems to be extremely value laden. Again, with the "most dutch support", a lot of assertion and no citation.

autocratus

Definately. I deleted the first sentence you quoted - Euroscepticism is nothing to do with "being against foreigners" and this is clearly NPOV, designed to portray EUskeptics as racists. I then added a citation needed tag to the assertion that most Dutch people are pro-EU. I left the Calvinist thing, but I think it needs to be altered (just not sure what to), as it seems pretty clearly POV. The "Euroskepticism in the British Press" bit also seems clearly POV, citing numerous examples of the British press making mistakes but not citing any other article written with an anti-EU theme. All in all, the entire article gives me the impression that it was intended to convey the idea that EUskepticism is tantamount to racism and something that shouldnt really be socially acceptable. Clearly it needs serious editting, and is generally a scandalous state for a so-called encyclopedia to be in, but then this is wikipedia after all... 88.105.249.165 15:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA

Could someone add IPA to this article? I added a link to the pronunciation note on skepticism/scepticism, but that looks rather sloppy as it is. Darkildor 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What's IPA ? India Pale Ale is the usual meaning to most of us Brits. --219.79.220.134 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Into separate national articles

Hi, I feel this article has become too long and the part dedicated to the UK has become unbalanced. I suggest moving everything national into new separate articles, and keeping here what is relevant on the European scale only.--Arnaudherve 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Party

I deleted reference to this UK party. It got 129 votes at the 2005 General Election, in one constituency. This user has also created an article Imperial Party which claims it has seats in London and Northern Ireland, but it is not in either assembly. In addition, the user has vandalised the List of political parties in the United Kingdom, giving the Imperial Party 27 seats in the House of Commons, and created a page on the British far right apparently to attribute the Imperial Party programme to the entire UK far right.Paul111 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous: UK fourth largest economy

The UK is no longer the world's fourth largest economy. China overtook it this year, according to lots of news articles. Here is one from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4647928.stm

[edit] Help stop EU banners populating Wikipedia

Wikipedia needs a cleanup from some of the recently and very systematically inserted euro-propaganda:
(1) there are EU banners added to articles about languages (it would be enough to mention that a language is an official working language of the EU, but it is not appropriate to insert a distracting political banner (a box and a flag!) at the bottom of every language article); moreover, languages are correctly categorised linguistically and not on the basis of a political agenda;
Example: Estonian language (look for "Official languages of the European Union")
(2) there are unnecessary links to the .eu internet domain article from each and every article about the member countries. Firstly, in real-life terms, the .eu registration is not restricted to the union's countries (see http://www.azam.biz/eu-domain-names-fraud/), and, secondly, why not add link to .com, .net and .org from all of those country articles, because com/net/org are registrable and popular in all those countries! "EU" is notorious for being an animal that wants to be more equal than other animals...
Example: Estonia (look for "also .eu, shared with other European Union member states")
It seems that these banners and links are inserted by a bot (they are identical on all the pages involved). Can someone who is a more experienced Wikipedia editor help to reduce the eu bias?

• erm.. in a word, no. From what I can gather what you refer to is neither euro-proaganda nor eu bias. It looks to me like the simple tagging of articles which have relevance to the EU in some respect. Nothing to blow steam about. Marcus22 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help stop national banners populating Wikipedia?

Given that national flag banners are already inserted en masse into articles about member states and related articles (on their geography, demographics, history, government and so on), what reason is there to remove EU symbols specifically?Paul111 13:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The EU-spam banner unfortunately is currently widespread in Wikipedia (November 2006). Just noticed that the spam banner is also translated in other languages; example - at the bottom of a Croatian article about the Italian language http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talijanski . Why does it classify as spam? -- Because every such banner, and there could be hundreds or thousands of them if you multiply the number of "EU languages" with the number of Wikipedia languages, contains an outward link to the EU political website. I think massive outward linking classifies as link spam; moreover, in this case it is graphically reinforced with the non-neutral EU flags. It would be fair to just include a mention that a language is an EU working language if individual contributors wish to do so; but robotically disseminating EU banners throughout Wikipedia amounts to misuse of bandwidth and to spreading of biased eurocrat/europhile views. Wikipedia not a link farm. EU should not be an exception to anti-spamming rules, and its banners should be withdrawn or at least toned down.

There is no link to an "EU political website", but to the official list of EU official languages, which is clearly identified as "Source". It may be cluttering up the template, true, but it is not a plot.Paul111 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)