No it passed a vote 30 odd years ago the problem is a lot of the people now don't get just what caused the positive vote back then.

There isnt any revoting to see if the public have changed their minds after x amount of years?

EU wasn't around 30 years ago. I think you're referring to the European Economic Community or the European Coal and Steal Community... UK was only a late member of the European Economic Community but that is nothing like the bureaucratic EU. It was passed as a treaty over the UK people because the UK people would have rejected it in the referendum.

Somehow very apt.

Personally, given the size of China, and its growth, as well as the size of India and the USA, I think Europe technically needs to coalesce into a kind of pseudo-country, like the US is a pseudo-country made from many different states combining (notice how there's no specific term for being from the USA - "American" also applies to everyone from the Americas - but there is such a term for being from each state, e.g. Californian, Texan, etc).

However, it just doesn't work like that. We have to many different languages, and European countries feel as foreign from each other as, say, India and China. We have no real TV, radio, magazines, educational traditions etc in common with each other, and often very different products available in shops, and other things that make each of our cultures feel separate. Also, no offence to other European countries, but the EU is essentially Germany, France and Britain with a load of other countries clinging on at our expense, possibly excusing the odd country here and there whose contribution I'm not fully aware of. The really stoic and solid countries, like several Nordic countries, tended to stay aloof and separate from the EU.

In 1972, the UK left the EFTA it created with Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and a few others to join what was then the EEC - it was sold to the public as a similar "Free Trade" bloc, but BIGGER!!! - there'd be no burdonsome regulations or loss of National Sovereignty/identity.

This move took some years because France, in a fit of pique, blocked the UK's inclusion twice, in what can only be described as "getting their own back for Britain twice refusing them entry into the Commonwealth" when France feared growing unrest in their African colonies, and particularly during the Suez Crisis.

It eventually fell to Heath's Conservatives party to get the "success" of entry, while Labour, under Wilson, had been failing. The next Labour government almost immediately held a referendum on remaining inside. That was 1975. Coincidentally, 1975 was the *ONLY* year Britain saw a return of more money than paid into the European "project". Curious eh? The one year Britain asks its citizens about Europe, Europe "spends" more money on it. Time will tell what happens *IF* we get another referendum....

Anyway, polls before this vote were overwhelmingly negative - surprising after only a few years, maybe. But after a MASSIVE fear-mongering propaganda campaign, and loaded questions on the ballot, Britain voted to remain a member.

Noone under the age of 55 or so, in Britain, has ever been asked what they think about it.

The farce over the Lisbon Treaty, being defeated, then allegedly rewritten and revoted on in countries like France and Ireland, never happened here. It was sold as "not a constitution" and won't entail more loss of Sovereignty, when it blatantly IS, and will. Instead, we had our "glorious leaders" force its passage through Parliament, both houses, without them even thinking to consider the people who voted to put them into PUBLIC SERVICE!
Which saw Baroness Cathy Ashton, for her part in the Lord's process, receive a rather cushy posting as #2 in power to the Kommission. Nice job if you can get it, eh? Aside from being a complete disaster at it...naturally. Promoted to her level of greatest incompetence...
Poor President Tony couldn't even get that much of a look-in.

The only people who *actively* seem to want to be a member are the government - MPs and Civil Servants (obviously on the Gravy Train! CHEW CHEW!) and certain members of "big business" (most probably tax-fiddling via the "pick your own tax haven" regulations). There's a swelling amongst the "OUT!" brigade, which does include the "Let's sit down and talk about it, honestly, and stop fobbing us off with your trite predictions of doom" participants. There's still more, probably the larger part of the population, that don't really care one way or the other, but depending on how the vote is worded, would probably carry on the status quo of remaining a member.

The only time either one of the two main parties (Liebour/CONjobs) will ever willingly allow another national referendum on EU membership in the UK is when they're sure it will return a "Stay a member" answer.
And they'll spend tens of millions making sure that they get it.

While the rest of the world may consider us a joke, Italy is still the third contributor of the european union (i know you didn't mean to offend). Said that it's only true that european countries have a cultural background that is simply too widespread to be unified.

I've never heard of them. What are they?

Yes, exactly my problem :D

Not at all. I think the UK should strengthen it's ties to the EU.

Those regulations prevent europeans people from buying more than 3 bananas per day. Studies have shown that if you eat more than 3 bananas, you'll shit yellow bricks that will cause major problems to the canalizations.

I've found that eating lots of bananas keeps me... regular...

I've thought some more about 'banana regulations' and it must be a reference to the fruit and vegetable weird shapes thing. At first, I thought it might be a term similar to 'banana republic'...

Ha ha ha, seriously?
Sometimes i wonder why the heck they get paid, those people that do those kind of studies.

Ah, sorry.
Was just thinking of this :
EEA and Norway Grants 2009–2014

According to the Agreement on the EEA Grants 2009–14, annual tranches of €197.7 million will be made available to the 12 newest EU member states as well as to Greece, Portugal and Spain. Poland and Romania are the biggest recipients, with €116 million and €61 million of funding, followed by Hungary, Czech Republic and Bulgaria with €25–30 million in support.

Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway contribute financially according to their size and financial strength. As by far the largest country of the three, Norway provides 95% of the EEA Grants. The priority sectors are environmental protection and management, climate change and renewable energy, civil society, human and social development, and protecting cultural heritage. Academic research may be eligible within one or more of these sectors.

According to the Agreement for the separate Norway Grants, Norway will make available an additional annual contribution of €160 million to the 12 newest EU member states. The priority sectors are carbon capture and storage, green industry innovation, research and scholarship, human and social development, justice and home affairs, and promotion of decent work and tripartite dialogue.

Strengthening bilateral relations is a key aspect of the EEA and Norway Grants, and partnerships between donor state entities and beneficiary state entities is a central aim in the implementation of these grant schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEA_and_Norway_Grants

I know. Makes you proud to be Norwegian, doesn't it? Going from being one of the poorest European countries to end up in a position where we can share our wealth. Especially for a cause such as increasing sustainable educational development in other countries. You know the saying "Give a man a fish, and he will have food for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will have food for the rest of his life"