| We like arguing things which nobody
            else will argue. Britain plays host to three notable opinions
            on the EU - that we should go in as deeply as possible, that
            we should go in up to a point and that we would be much better
            off out. The extremely vocal "Silent Majority" is apparently
            currently of the latter view and so, in order to avoid losing
            votes over the subject, the Labour Party has taken to pretending
            that it doesn't like Europe, the Lib-Dems want a referendum on
            membership and the Tories have removed the EU from their maps
            and replaced it with "Here Be Monsters" (the last of
            which is actually a joke pinched from the short-lived ITV show
            Headcases). The history of the EU is very simple. Once
            upon a time Europe was occupied by the Mediterranean people (around
            the Med.), the Celts (France, Britain, Ireland and a few other
            bits), the Goths (Germany, Austria, Poland and a few other nations),
            the Norsemen (that lot in furs, the north and the dark) and the
            lot who lived on an arc around the eastern end of the Goths between
            the Baltic and the Black Sea. Travel was difficult and the races
            were all separated by mountains, big rives or large expanses
            of sea, so they never met. One of the Mediterranean tribes called the
            Romans got a bit full of themselves around 100BC and started
            invading everyone else. By 1BC they had halved the amount of
            space the Celts had to play with and smashed most of their Mediterranean
            neighbours. They had also had a go at the Goths, who proved not
            to be very squeamish (not so squeamish that they would opt out
            of stringing the guts of their defeated enemies around the trees)
            and very fond of passing on dubious stories about elk and their
            sleeping arrangements. By 100AD the only European race which
            hadn't had to worry about them too much were the Norsemen, who
            were happily isolated on the north side of wasteland, mountains,
            sea and the line which it is possible to go north of without
            starting to wear trousers. Then the Roman Empire collapsed and
            Western Europe entered the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages ended up with the Celts losing
            Britain to the Goths in exchange for not losing it to the Norsemen
            - which worked for 300 years or so until the Goths invented the
            Danegeld (you pay the Dane not to come to this nice warm country
            and murder, rape and pillage, with the result that they take
            to coming much more frequently so they can be paid to go away
            again). The Celts in France stopped calling themselves Celts
            and the Goths, having bashed up the Romans and nearly destroyed
            civilisation, named themselves after the Romans and took to a
            very strange system of democracy where the person who called
            himself Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was elected every 20
            years or so by the princes that he would be governing. The princes
            accepted this system as long as the Emperor didn't impose himself
            on them too much, with the result that the Goths couldn't get
            up enough fighting force to do anything of note. Thus the Eastern
            Europeans could fight each other, the Mediterranean people could
            divide up into city states and fall out and the Pope could claim
            that he was responsible for all of them and demand that they
            pay him to rebuild big stone buildings which they would never
            see. He had rather less luck with France and Britain, which grew
            too big and powerful to listen to a bloke in Rome, instead beating
            each other up at irregular intervals for most of the Second Millennium
            (excluding when one or the other took it out on the Spanish instead).
            When the Holy Roman Empire or its successor nations were in sufficiently
            good state to get involved they occasionally helped out at beating
            up France and upsetting the Pope. The Holy Roman Empire fragmented and then
            reformed as Germany; the Italians and the Greeks began to reform
            their nations (the Italians because they had got rid of the Austrians
            and the Greeks because they had got rid of the Turks); the Eastern
            Europeans conglomerated into various countries and the French,
            British and Spanish stormed out to conquer the rest of the world
            and find other places to have their wars. Then they came home
            and demolished Belgium between 1914 and 1918; this war was truncated
            in November 1918 and after a 21 year ceasefire resumed in 1939.
            Germany conquered everyone apart from Italy (who were allies),
            Spain (who were sort of allies), Switzerland (who were so buried
            in the Alps that it was easiest to leave them alone) and Britain
            (who was left for later). The Russians and the United States
            of America eventually pitched in and in 1945 Europe was left
            in ruins with a dying Britain murmuring "I won" at
            the quartered Germany and the broken France. The solution, Britain decided, was to revive
            France and Germany and persuade them to form an alliance. Russia
            opted out of this and took the eastern third of Germany and points
            East to form its own Empire. Points West were tidily formed into
            the Coal and Steel Union - a group which Britain would have joined
            were it not for a Labour Government which wasn't sure what to
            do about a Leader of the Opposition who had stormed off to change
            the world, with Truth, Justice, Freedom and the Churchill Way. Instead Britain remained out until 1973, by
            which point the European Economic Community had obviously been
            a success since Europe had managed a record 28 years without
            France going to war with Spain, Germany or Britain, Britain punching
            up Spain or Germany inadvertantly invading Italy. There was also
            a union with the US which was useful for things like sharing
            nuclear secrets between each other and selling them to Russia
            without the US being able to tell who did it. There was the small
            matter of a recession in Britain caused by the British Government
            being too proud to accept that its currency really wasn't worth
            as much as it wanted it to be, but apart from that the European
            project was successful. Trading was much easier and everyone
            wanted to be part of the gang. Nowadays there are many grand advantages.
            Standardisation is an obvious one. With the exception of Britain
            (and, occasionally, a couple of others), everyone in Europe works
            no more than 40 hours per week under the same safety law, is
            paid in the same currency, uses the same weights and measures
            and drives on the right. This allows people to travel much more
            easily and cheaply and they all have a rough idea of what their
            rights are as an employee. The problems of people entering lb
            into a box marked kg or miles into a box marked kilometres are
            reduced and cars sold in one European country can be sold with
            minimal modification in almost any other - barring Britain, who
            uses miles and lb, charges for things in a different currency
            (which is at least now based on base 10 rather than a mix of
            base 12 and base 20) and insists on all cars being modified at
            immense expense for right-hand drive, which rather reduces the
            benefits of the project. Occasionally Britain is backed up by
            the Irish. Warfare has also been reduced. Nowadays the
            top politicians are treated as an international joke - Sarkozy
            is short, Berlesconi is corrupt and excessively fertile and Brown,
            like all British politicians, has a popularity rating which is
            inversely proportional to his success abroad. No longer is there
            an urge to summon up an army and destroy such people. Instead
            they are cheerily ridiculed and long speeches are made round
            tables in Belgium until they surrender and give Britain an opt-out.
            Germany has found that rather than taking over the world by invading
            everyone it can simply buy out their companies. Thus after British
            railfreight company EWS added some French services to its portfolio
            it was bought out by German national railway company Deutsche
            Bahn, which therefore now operates the majority of railfreight
            in the UK, various freight trains in France and Spain and the
            British Royal Train. Then we have Deutsche Post, which started
            out as the national German postal system and now owns DHL, thus
            giving it a finger in most countries in the world. The unfair
            thing is that the Germans co-operate - e.g. Deutsche Post looks
            at taking over Royal Mail while Deutsche Bahn takes over Royal
            Mail's rail-based postal services in the UK. It would have been
            like Royal Mail and British Rail sitting down and talking to
            each other so BR could do as much as possible for RM at a minimal
            price. This form of taking over the world makes the Germans feel
            good without involving any bloodshed, which is quite a good thing. Each country can also now decide how they
            want to contribute to Europe and settle down to working at that.
            Britain can do the accountancy, Germany can do the aggressive
            marketing, Belgium can produce the chocolate, Eastern Europe
            can provide the food and the workforce, France can bring the
            wine and Spain can provide the holidays. This is helpful to everyone,
            since Britain no longer has to produce cars (which it was never
            any good at), France no longer has to make its agricultural industry
            competitive (which it was incapable of doing) and Eastern Europe
            can rest assured that it won't keep getting invaded by people
            who want their food. Each country also finds it much easier to
            trade with other countries. Things can be sold between European
            nations much more cheaply than between countries which are outside
            Europe, which means that these products can be cheaper and the
            companies involved can make bigger profits. For some reason,
            this has avoided leading to a "closed shop" and Asian
            cars, American aeroplanes and African food are still popular. Then there are the law and order benefits.
            The legal systems remain separate - something which causes trouble
            when Britain interprets things very literally after they have
            been written to leave France in no doubt at all that it is supposed
            to be doing something. But a criminal who goes around causing
            trouble on one side of the EU can be locked up for it on other
            sides of the EU. Which is really jolly handy. Finally, what happens when Britain abandons
            the rest of Europe has been shown before. In 1530 King Henry
            VIII pulled out of the political union of Europe of the time
            - called the Catholic Church - and declared independence from
            everyone else. Shortly afterwards Europe's best time-keepers
            noticed that the calendar which was being used was ten days out
            of sync with the planet (the longest day of the year, for example
            is supposed to be on 21st June, but was falling on the 11th of
            June). Further calculations showed that there had been 10 leap
            years more than were really needed - 1500, 1400, 1300, 1100,
            1000, 900, 700, 600, 500 and 300 - since the calendar which was
            being used had been introduced, so it was decided to take them
            out. The opportunity was taken at the same time to move the beginning
            of the year from March 25th to January 1st, which is neater.
            Leap years still happened once every 4 years, except when the
            year divided by 100 (when they were omitted), except when the
            year divided by 400 (when they still happened), which makes the
            calendar more or less accurate. Britain, however, was not in Europe at the
            time. It was not in the fast lane going slowly, as John Major
            later put it. It had pulled over at a service station and was
            having a nice cup of tea (believed to be with a milk and two
            sugars). So it ignored this little alteration of the calendar,
            which meant that (as far as Continental Europe was concerned),
            1601 began in Europe on January 1st and in Britain on April 5th.
            Britain, meanwhile, saw Europe begin 1601 on December 21st 1600;
            1601 would not begin in Britain for another 93 days. This sort
            of thing makes working together very difficult. Unsurprisingly,
            Britain spent most of this period isolated from Europe or at
            war with someone. Things got slightly worse when Britain insisted
            on having a leap year in 1700, while the Continent wasn't planning
            on having another leap year which divided by 100 until the end
            of the millennium, so the new years ended up being 94 days out
            of sync. Britain turned out only to be putting off
            the changeover; in 1750 the Calendar Act was passed and the two
            calendars were aligned again. Britain began 1751 on March 25th,
            as usual, but finished it on December 31st, only 11 days after
            the rest of Western Europe. The 11-day difference was eliminated
            in 1752, when the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th,
            12th and 13th of September were all omitted from the calendar.
            The financial year remained 365 days long in both years (technically
            that which began on 25th March 1751 was 366 days long, since
            1752 was a leap year - quibble quibble) and so the 11 days were
            added onto the end of the 1752/3 financial year, taking it to
            the 6th of April - pleas to the Exchequor that they had received
            11 days of excess taxation since 300 being ignored. The calendar
            has remained that way ever since. It is now taken as read that
            every country in the world has the same calendar and that, whatever
            date and year today is, it is the same everywhere. It actually
            isn't; a few countries insist on having their own calendars,
            although it doesn't do them any good. As there was nearly 200 years of inconvenience
            as a result of this delay caused by excessive British independence
            and Britain still ended up doing what everyone else did (and
            it now seems perfectly natural to do so), it seems fairly reasonable
            that, if the rest of Europe is going to standardise in a sensible
            manner, we should also do so. So why not be in the EU? |