The British question: Leave the EU?
The sooner Great Britain leaves the one-size- doesn't -fit-all European Union, the better. And with anti-EU sentiment rising among Brits, Prime Minister David Cameron now promises a referendum on continuing EU membership.
The promise is contingent on Mr. Cameron being re-elected in 2015. He wants Britain to remain in the EU — but on more favorable terms he vows to negotiate in the interim. That's what British businesses concerned about the economic effects of leaving the 27-nation trading bloc would like, too.
Yet the EU is a textbook case — and its economically weaker member nations' debt crises are cautionary tales — about the pitfalls of surrendering sovereignty to a bloated supranational bureaucracy fond of onerous regulations. And Britain never has been wholeheartedly on board with the EU anyway, as evidenced by its refusal to adopt the EU's euro currency — a decision that seems wiser than ever in light of those debt crises.
Britain's ambivalence toward the EU is rooted in its enduring, fundamental national character, which drove and sustained its World War II fight to remain free and independent in the face of Hitler's quest to dominate Europe. Thankfully, Britain's status today is a political, rather than military, matter. Yet the essential issue remains the same.
The British people increasingly realize they'd be better off if they — not EU central planners in Brussels — determine their nation's policies, regulations and fate for themselves. Those for whom Britain's EU departure can't come soon enough must prevail.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Arneson firing: Legally dubious
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Saturday essay: The thumb itches
- The Box
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem