NationStates Jolt Archive

What do NSers think about EU membership? I'm interested as to what everyone thinks (both British and other) about Britain's relationship with Europe, and whether it should continue as a member.

I personally think that it is in the national interest to leave the EU, as it is becoming inward-looking and stagnant at a time when the geopolitical situation is changing dramatically. I think Britain, with the 4th largest economy and the world's language could do better acting independently.

I'm not familliar with the EU, but isn't the UK a founding member, or is it just Germany and France? Anywho the EU seems to be slacking lately and it is not benefiting as it is really supposed to do.

I'm not familliar with the EU, but isn't the UK a founding member, or is it just Germany and France?
The founding members were France, Germany, Italy, Belguim, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. One of the British problems is that we join late, after others have defined the rules. We're doing the same with the euro.

What do NSers think about EU membership?
Better to be in than out.

I'm interested as to what everyone thinks (both British and other) about Britain's relationship with Europe, and whether it should continue as a member.
I think Britain is still stuck on a level that they should've transcended a long time ago, when they lost India. Eversince 1871 they were second fiddle in Europe and only the resources of India and other colonies kept them afloat.
Once they lost those they should've been realistic enough to integrate - rather than maintain this ridiculous "quasi-commitment" to a European future.

I personally think that it is in the national interest to leave the EU, as it is becoming inward-looking and stagnant at a time when the geopolitical situation is changing dramatically.
It is stagnant because we have yet to sit down properly and sort out what the EU should be in the future. If you think Britain could do better by not getting involved in that vital debate, and instead try to survive on its own with a behemoth like the EU forming right next to them, you're mistaken.

I think Britain, with the 4th largest economy and the world's language could do better acting independently.
And what do you think the "4th largest economy" still means today?
The US has an economy ten times your size, China will have swallowed them up in 50 years tops. India still there too - and they speak English too.
Fact of the matter is that in the modern world, none of the small countries can successfully stay on top on their own (economically or militarily).
It's a very simple choice - join the EU and become a part of another large, potentially very powerful bloc, or leave and be condemned to existence as an unimportant blot on the map, a pawn for the large players to poke each other with.

Leave! The EU is a sovereignty-sapping machine which will leave all of Europe subject to the whims of the unelected politicians in Brussels.

I agree, the EU was made for smaller nations to become part of a large community so they can have support under them. However, the EU is somewhat dominated by its founding members.

Leave! The EU is a sovereignty-sapping machine which will leave all of Europe subject to the whims of the unelected politicians in Brussels.
Parliament
The European Parliament is elected every five years by the people of Europe to represent their interests.

The present parliament, elected in June 2004, has 732 members from all 25 EU countries. Nearly one third of them (222) are women.

The main job of Parliament is to pass European laws. It shares this responsibility with the Council of the European Union, and the proposals for new laws come from the European Commission. Parliament and Council also share joint responsibility for approving the EU’s €100 billion annual budget.

Parliament has the power to dismiss the European Commission.
=======================================
Council
The Council of the European Union: — formerly known as the Council of Ministers — shares with Parliament the responsibility for passing laws and taking policy decisions. It also bears the main responsibility for what the EU does in the field of the common foreign and security policy and for EU action on some justice and freedom issues.

The Council consists of ministers from the national governments of all the EU countries. Meetings are attended by whichever ministers are responsible for the items to be discussed: foreign ministers, ministers of the economy and finance, ministers for agriculture and so on, as appropriate.

Each country has a number of votes in the Council broadly reflecting the size of their population, but weighted in favour of smaller countries. Most decisions are taken by majority vote, although sensitive issues in areas like taxation, asylum and immigration, or foreign and security policy, require unanimity.
======================================
Commission
The European Commission represents and upholds the interests of Europe as a whole. It is independent of national governments.

It drafts proposals for new European laws, which it presents to the European Parliament and the Council. It manages the day-to-day business of implementing EU policies and spending EU funds. The Commission also keeps an eye out to see that everyone abides by the European treaties and laws. It can act against rule-breakers, taking them to the Court of Justice if necessary.

The Commission consists of 25 women and men — one from each EU country. They are assisted by about 24 000 civil servants, most of whom work in Brussels.

The President of the Commission is chosen by EU governments and endorsed by the European Parliament. The other commissioners are nominated by their national governments in consultation with the in-coming President, and must be approved by the Parliament. They do not represent the governments of their home countries. Instead, each of them has responsibility for a particular EU policy area.

The President and members of the Commission are appointed for a period of five years, coinciding with the period for which the European Parliament is elected.

Source: http://europa.eu.int/abc/panorama/howorganised/index_en.htm

Leave! The EU is a sovereignty-sapping machine which will leave all of Europe subject to the whims of the unelected politicians in Brussels.

To be fair, if the EU did unify further, the politicians would become elected.

Edit: seems they already are. More points for moi.

Quote from Neu Leonstein...

"Better to be in than out."

What a reasoned arguement!


"I think Britain is still stuck on a level that they should've transcended a long time ago, when they lost India. Eversince 1871 they were second fiddle in Europe and only the resources of India and other colonies kept them afloat.
Once they lost those they should've been realistic enough to integrate - rather than maintain this ridiculous "quasi-commitment" to a European future."

This is waffle. Britain actually spent more than in earned from its colonies, which explains why the withdrawal from empire was necessary after the war, because the Americans would not loan us sufficient monies to keep it going. As for your 1871 comment, are you trying to suggest that it is now Germany who is dominant in Europe? Surely its dismemberment in 1945 destroyed that notion, and the fact that it is now limping towards reform shows that it offers no leadership whatsoever.


"It is stagnant because we have yet to sit down properly and sort out what the EU should be in the future. If you think Britain could do better by not getting involved in that vital debate, and instead try to survive on its own with a behemoth like the EU forming right next to them, you're mistaken."

A behemoth is united. A union of 25 distinct nations is far from united. As for your point about sorting out what the EU should be, this has been going on since it was founded! Now that there are 25 members with widely differing ideas, it's unlikley a consensus will be reached in the foreseeable future.


"And what do you think the "4th largest economy" still means today?
The US has an economy ten times your size, China will have swallowed them up in 50 years tops. India still there too - and they speak English too.
Fact of the matter is that in the modern world, none of the small countries can successfully stay on top on their own (economically or militarily).
It's a very simple choice - join the EU and become a part of another large, potentially very powerful bloc, or leave and be condemned to existence as an unimportant blot on the map, a pawn for the large players to poke each other with."

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrated how size relates to economic performance. Luxembourg has one of the highest GDPs in the world, much higher than its giant neighbours.

Edit: seems they already are. More points for moi.
Just to add...the constitution (text here (http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc1_en.htm)) was also meant to further streamline the process, including giving the parliament more powers.

Just to add...the constitution (text here (http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc1_en.htm)) was also meant to further streamline the process, including giving the parliament more powers.

Are you going to at least attempt to rebut some of my points?

Use the Quote-Function.

As for your 1871 comment, are you trying to suggest that it is now Germany who is dominant in Europe?
Was...not necessarily is.
And yet, you use the size of the economy as a measure of importance and power - for the time being, Germany's still bigger than the UK's.

Surely its dismemberment in 1945 destroyed that notion, and the fact that it is now limping towards reform shows that it offers no leadership whatsoever.
And how does it show that? Maybe you haven't kept up with the news, but the new Chancellor has just announced a pretty important shift in German policy which may mean that France can say goodbye to all its boons soon.
It is primarily the will to lead that needs to be established in Germany, the will to take the EU and give it the push it needs to get things started. You cannot for a second doubt that the country has everything it needs to become an even more major force in the EU already, slow growth being of no importance (any BTW, Germany is the world's biggest exporter, beating records every year).

Now that there are 25 members with widely differing ideas, it's unlikley a consensus will be reached in the foreseeable future.
And yet it will be reached one way or another - I'm merely suggesting that it would be in Britain's interest to play a part in it rather than ignore what's happening right before its doorstep.

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrated how size relates to economic performance.
More population = more consumers and producers = more goods produced = higher GDP.

Luxembourg has one of the highest GDPs in the world, much higher than its giant neighbours.
GDP per capita, my friend. And that is primarily because Luxembourg has access to the "giant neighbours" - if you took that away, I doubt the country could even produce enough food to feed its population.

Are you going to at least attempt to rebut some of my points?
Patence, young one, patience.

i don't think its a matter of being in it purely for ourselves, but for the betterment of all Europe. after all, thats the reason why the EEC was set up in the first place (from euratom and the ECSC etc)

but then i'm an idealist like that


integrate further in both economic and political means, scrap the pound and get the euro, but lets try and cut down on some of the bureaucracy

And what do you think the "4th largest economy" still means today?
The US has an economy ten times your size, China will have swallowed them up in 50 years tops. India still there too - and they speak English too.
Fact of the matter is that in the modern world, none of the small countries can successfully stay on top on their own (economically or militarily).
It's a very simple choice - join the EU and become a part of another large, potentially very powerful bloc, or leave and be condemned to existence as an unimportant blot on the map, a pawn for the large players to poke each other with.
amen.
the majority of euroskeptics over here still seem to believe britain is "great" and that we don't need anyone else to be just that. (misplaced) pride blinds their view (in my experience with the nationalists i know)


As for your point about sorting out what the EU should be, this has been going on since it was founded!

a good thing too! better that than a truly stagnat, stuck-in-its ways behemoth.
besides, stagnation now does not mean that all is lost and the idea is moot. the idea of the EU is worth working through whatever problems and difficulties that are thrown up.

Now that there are 25 members with widely differing ideas, it's unlikley a consensus will be reached in the foreseeable future.

unlikely =/= impossible
and again, problems =/= give up

The EU is barely 50 yrs old. Jesus, what do you want? Miracles overnight?

Quotations from New Leonstein

"Use the Quote-Function."

Why? I like this way...:p


"Was...not necessarily is.
And yet, you use the size of the economy as a measure of importance and power - for the time being, Germany's still bigger than the UK's."

Germany is relatively powerless. The fact that we buy BMWs and Bosch dishwashers do not give Germany massive political influence. It's compulsory pacifism mean that it is militarily pathetic, which means that it has little clout in international affairs. Besides, if you want to go down the "My economy's bigger than yours" road, our higher growth means that we're predicted to overtake you in the next 20 years.


"And how does it show that? Maybe you haven't kept up with the news, but the new Chancellor has just announced a pretty important shift in German policy which may mean that France can say goodbye to all its boons soon.
It is primarily the will to lead that needs to be established in Germany, the will to take the EU and give it the push it needs to get things started. You cannot for a second doubt that the country has everything it needs to become an even more major force in the EU already, slow growth being of no importance (any BTW, Germany is the world's biggest exporter, beating records every year)."

Angela Merkel is leading a coalition that is extremely compromised, and has gone back on many of its election promises. The suggestion that she is some kind of German Maggie Thatcher does a disservice to Thatcher's name. As for relaxing ties with France, if this was the case, why was France the first country Angela Merkel visited?


"And yet it will be reached one way or another - I'm merely suggesting that it would be in Britain's interest to play a part in it rather than ignore what's happening right before its doorstep."

What will make it happen exactly?


"More population = more consumers and producers = more goods produced = higher GDP."

You obviously have a deep understanding of economics. India has a larger GDP than Norway, but would you really suggest that the average Norwegian is envious of the Indian economy?


"GDP per capita, my friend. And that is primarily because Luxembourg has access to the "giant neighbours" - if you took that away, I doubt the country could even produce enough food to feed its population."

GDP per capita is the one that counts, as I've shown in my previous statement. Besides, countries can still have access to each other without being politically linked... it's called free trade! As for suggesting that Luxembourg is somehow dependent on its neigbours, perhaps you can tell me if Luxembourg is a net drain on EU resources.

The EU is barely 50 yrs old. Jesus, what do you want? Miracles overnight?
quite... i often find myself just pointing out the example of the USA when arguing with euroskeptics. people back then (200-whatever years ago it was) quite probably thought a union of the states could never work etc
and yet now just look at it

the same could well be true for europe in 150 years time
and if not, if things don't work, then at least we tried. and trying is a damn sight better than each state going off on their own little ego trip


the major problem to a 'Federal' Europe (however the supranational govt is arranged) would be the language barriers. but that's a problem, by definition it can be solved, and its something which we are already, at the moment, overcoming by being in the EU, and by working economically and politically with continental businesses and governments. its also something that in time can resolve itself (like, for example, english lessons being mandatory in all schools throughout europe, or even english (or french) being the offical language of the "USE")


(i'm glad nobody's gone sprouting off about sovereignity yet...)

quite... i often find myself just pointing out the example of the USA when arguing with euroskeptics. people back then (200-whatever years ago it was) quite probably thought a union of the states could never work etc
and yet now just look at it

the same could well be true for europe in 150 years time
and if not, if things don't work, then at least we tried. and trying is a damn sight better than each state going off on their own little ego trip


the major problem to a 'Federal' Europe (however the supranational govt is arranged) would be the language barriers. but that's a problem, by definition it can be solved, and its something which we are already, at the moment, overcoming by being in the EU, and by working economically and politically with continental businesses and governments. its also something that in time can resolve itself (like, for example, english lessons being mandatory in all schools throughout europe, or even english (or french) being the offical language of the "USE")


(i'm glad nobody's gone sprouting off about sovereignity yet...)

You can't compare the two! America was effectively created on virgin land, which meant that the new political structures didn't destroy old ones in the process. That is what Europe is doing, through the erosion of our sovereignty.

Would you say that Norway is on an "ego trip"? Or Iceland? They never to seem to act in an arrogant fashion.

I'd like to see you psersuade the French or Germans that English should be the common language... The Cornish want recognition of theirs, and it'[s only spoken by about 3 people!

It's compulsory pacifism mean that it is militarily pathetic, which means that it has little clout in international affairs.
Militarily Pathetic, hey? The Bundeswehr was established for one purpose, and one purpose only: To slow down or stop the Soviet Advance and save Europe's arse for long enough to give the Americans a chance to come in.
And in a war along those lines, it probably is one of the best in the world.

As for relaxing ties with France, if this was the case, why was France the first country Angela Merkel visited?
You obviously don't know much about the history of the two countries, so I won't bother you with it any longer.

What will make it happen exactly?
A new French government for example? It just takes a little thing to give us agreement on the EU-Budget. And that budget holds all the vital issues inside it - agreement here means agreement on the future of the EU.

You obviously have a deep understanding of economics.
You have no idea how deep...

India has a larger GDP than Norway, but would you really suggest that the average Norwegian is envious of the Indian economy?
Are you familiar with the concept of "free trade" or "globalisation"? I trust you are, so it's suffice to say that India is upgrading its technological foundations at a massive rate - and it has a middle class of 250 million people ready to buy things up (that's right - having a billion people means GDP per capita is irrelevant, there will always be a large enough number of people to get things going). A firm started in India can grow to enormous size before ever having to worry about going overseas.
A Norwegian firm cannot - and its only advantages (namely its technology and relative wealth of the consumers) are being eaten away by countries like China, India and soon Brazil.

Besides, countries can still have access to each other without being politically linked... it's called free trade!
And political cooperation is necessary for that to work. That's why NAFTA is such a joke - the governments are working against each other.

As for suggesting that Luxembourg is somehow dependent on its neigbours, perhaps you can tell me if Luxembourg is a net drain on EU resources.
From the CIA Factbook:

Exports:
$13.4 billion f.o.b. (2003)

Exports - commodities:
machinery and equipment, steel products, chemicals, rubber products, glass

Exports - partners:
Germany 22.1%, France 20.1%, Belgium 10.2%, UK 8.4%, Italy 7.3%, Spain 5.9%, Netherlands 4.3% (2004)

Imports:
$16.3 billion c.i.f. (2003)

Imports - commodities:
minerals, metals, foodstuffs, quality consumer goods

And as far as EU Payments go...
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,grossbild-451940-348546,00.html

You can't compare the two! America was effectively created on virgin land, which meant that the new political structures didn't destroy old ones in the process. That is what Europe is doing, through the erosion of our sovereignty.

the states were seperate governmental entities were they not? you don't think that they said "our government's only been going a while but lets forget about that and just sign up to this union thing"?
they might well have said "we've got our indipendence and our own government.. why join the Union? we could do better on our own"

which is exactly what euroskeptics in this country are saying. hence i can compare the two


sure there's erosion of existing governmental structures and sovereignity, but thats the price you pay. i see it as a fair price to trade in for our collective future. besides, i also see the idea of any state (bar probably the US) being truly "soverign", quite ridiculous in today's world political climate. the days of soverignity and the singular nation-state are gone for Europe as we must move forward to meet the challenges posed by the new primary actors in the world economic and political climate: the US, China and India.

whatever happened to "united we stand, divided we fall"?

Would you say that Norway is on an "ego trip"? Or Iceland? They never to seem to act in an arrogant fashion.

the nationalist and euroskeptic attitudes seen here in the UK are founded to some extent, from my observations, on an ego trip

but it is particularly Britain and France (*cough*) who are arrogant, yes :p

I'd like to see you psersuade the French or Germans that English should be the common language... The Cornish want recognition of theirs, and it'[s only spoken by about 3 people!
this is why i said in time
obviously if we tried this now, there's no hope in hell of achieveing it.
in time - and remember the timescale could easily run into a couple of centurites (the EU is a long term project after all) - this could change as perspectives and cultures change. just look at where the nations within the EU were 200 years ago and compare that with today... 200 years can make a lot of difference!
so in time there may be a way to overcome the language barrier while still enabling cultural identity. if not, i shouldn't think that'll stop things from working (it hasn't so far!)

this is another thing that annoys me about euroskeptics: Britain's short term benefit may perhaps lie in not being in the EU, but our long term best interests lie in being in the EU, absolutley. long term benefit outweighs short term and part of attaining that long term goodness is subscribing to the EU in the short term - "sacrificing" short term benefit for the long term

It would be very hard to see a Unified Europe as one country or empire though.

It would be very hard to see a Unified Europe as one country or empire though.

Europe has only ever been united through force of arms, not the will of its people. The rejection of the constitution in France and Holland shows that regardless of what the European "intellectual elites" want, most Europeans still belive in the primacy of the nation state.

Europe has only ever been united through force of arms, not the will of its people. The rejection of the constitution in France and Holland shows that regardless of what the European "intellectual elites" want, most Europeans still belive in the primacy of the nation state.
nonsense. the majority of people in france and holland were not voting against the idea or concept of a constitution, but against that particular draft of it.
many more were voting against their own internal governments (particularly true in france)
and even if they were voting against a constitution per se, that doesn't correlate to voting against the whole idea of the EU.

stop reading things into stuff thats not there



and besides, isn't it about time to try uniting europe in a peaceful way? the EU's done a pretty good job of doing just that since its foundation (how many inter-Europe wars have there been since WW2 hmm?)

nonsense. the majority of people in france and holland were not voting against the idea or concept of a constitution, but against that particular draft of it.
many more were voting against their own internal governments (particularly true in france)
and even if they were voting against a constitution per se, that doesn't correlate to voting against the whole idea of the EU.

stop reading things into stuff thats not there

Who are you to say why the French and Dutch voted as they did? There is no one factor that drove either side of the referendum, and to suggest that they only didn't like the draft is looking at the problem with tunnel vision.

Europe has only ever been united through force of arms, not the will of its people. The rejection of the constitution in France and Holland shows that regardless of what the European "intellectual elites" want, most Europeans still belive in the primacy of the nation state.

And until the Wright Brothers flew (or montgolfier), flying was stricktly bird's business, your point?

Plus, the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty doesn't equate in a rejection of Europe. In fact, many of those (especially on the left) that were against the treaty stated their Europhile stances. Also, fears were played alot in that vote that one cannot discount.

And until the Wright Brothers flew (or montgolfier), flying was stricktly bird's business, your point?

Plus, the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty doesn't equate in a rejection of Europe. In fact, many of those (especially on the left) that were against the treaty stated their Europhile stances. Also, fears were played alot in that vote that one cannot discount.

Those fears were not unjustified. Extending qualified majority voting on major issues represents a fundamental loss of national sovereignty, mostly to unaccountable institutions in Brussles. Don't talk about the European Parliament, because that only enshrines the ability of some European states to impose their will on others through more majority voting.

As for talking about leftie Europhiles, French politicians aren't particularly representative of their people. The fact that the National Front got 16% in the last presidential election shows that there is something rotten at the heart of French political culture. I'm willing to bet that most of the people who voted for Le Pen aren't fascists, but feel let down by the major parties.

Anyone who thinks Britain should leave the EU knows nothing about economics.

As for the idea of leaving but having the free trade, such arrangements are impossible without being in the situation of say Switzerland and Norway, who are in the trade zone, but have no say on the economic laws therein. You cannot have any system; political, ecnomic or whatever that pleases everyone all of the time, but you must make do and work with what you get.
Sure, there is much wrong with the EU (e.g. the C.A.P, and some of its laws really do stink. But as a package it has done nothing but good for this country and europe!

Quotations from Syawla...

"Anyone who thinks Britain should leave the EU knows nothing about economics."

I beg to differ...

"As for the idea of leaving but having the free trade, such arrangements are impossible without being in the situation of say Switzerland and Norway, who are in the trade zone, but have no say on the economic laws therein. You cannot have any system; political, ecnomic or whatever that pleases everyone all of the time, but you must make do and work with what you get.
Sure, there is much wrong with the EU (e.g. the C.A.P, and some of its laws really do stink. But as a package it has done nothing but good for this country and europe!"

If Switzerland and Norway are in such a weak economic bargaining position, why do they have much higher GDPs per capita than the average EU state? If Britain was out of the EU, we would be free to negotiate free trade agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and other major allies, which we can't as part of the EU. The EU is less of a free trade zone, and more of a customs union.

Those fears were not unjustified. Extending qualified majority voting on major issues represents a fundamental loss of national sovereignty, mostly to unaccountable institutions in Brussles. Don't talk about the European Parliament, because that only enshrines the ability of some European states to impose their will on others through more majority voting.

Hence, the Treaty was rejected - Just because the people are against part of the European construction process doesn't mean they are against the whole. I am a staunch federalist, and I could bore you to death with a list of the things I dislike/disaprove.


As for talking about leftie Europhiles, French politicians aren't particularly representative of their people. The fact that the National Front got 16% in the last presidential election shows that there is something rotten at the heart of French political culture. I'm willing to bet that most of the people who voted for Le Pen aren't fascists, but feel let down by the major parties.

The National Front got 16% on the other edge of France's immigration problem. You are right, most of those that vote for Le Pen aren't fascists, they are just scared of the immigrants. But that is because Le Pen promises to do something about it, so the people support him, hence, he does represent them, whatever we like it or not.

Britain is a European country, both geographically and culturally. To leave the Eu would be absurd. If it has issue with any EU policies then the answer is not to leave it but to get involved and change it.

If you have actually lived in Britain, you may be suprised that we are not just an American annex, our social, political, cultural and even philosophical beliefs are nothing like those of the US, and are more comparible to countries like Germany and France.

I mean, the US is actually considering teaching intelligent design in public schools. Here in Britain we aren't so idiotic as to give any credit to defunct mythology.

I'm sick of the British complaining about the EU! They have gained so much through open trade etc. and they still are not happy, it angered me when they refused to join the Euro as it was just their old 'northern ireland like' stubbornness kicking in and them keeping the pound has caused the economy in here in Ireland much inconvenience!

They should be appreciate the EU, it has done so much for them!
Either they should embrase Europe or be stubborn idiots and quit. :mad:

Britain is a European country, both geographically and culturally. To leave the Eu would be absurd. If it has issue with any EU policies then the answer is not to leave it but to get involved and change it.

If you have actually lived in Britain, you may be suprised that we are not just an American annex, our social, political, cultural and even philosophical beliefs are nothing like those of the US, and are more comparible to countries like Germany and France.

I mean, the US is actually considering teaching intelligent design in public schools. Here in Britain we aren't so idiotic as to give any credit to defunct mythology.

We can't change the EU, because we don't make up a high enough proportion of its population. Even if we did, France and Germany wouldn't abide by the rules (there are a host of examples, British beef, Stability and Growth etc...).

Suggesting that we are culturally closer to Europe is an easy claim to make, but do you have any examples? American shows like Lost and Friends are avidly watched in Britain, far more than in Europe. In many European countries Greens participate in government, a laughable suggestion in the UK (unless you're talking about the Scottish talking shop).

In France and Germany, unions run the show. Ever heard of Thatcher?

Europe is far more impressed by philosophers and acadmeics than the USA or Britain. How many Brits know anything about Voltaire?

If Switzerland and Norway are in such a weak economic bargaining position, why do they have much higher GDPs per capita than the average EU state? If Britain was out of the EU, we would be free to negotiate free trade agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and other major allies, which we can't as part of the EU. The EU is less of a free trade zone, and more of a customs union.

(Please, do use the quote function, it makes debating alot easier for the other folks :/ )

- Switzerland is Neutral. Not only this means no war for 400 years, also that means everyone puts their money there. Now, this gives switzerland a stable position as the "world's piggy bank", which allows it to maintain an excelent finantial system that translates itself into a wealthy nation

- Norway has oil and codfish. Curiously, no Industry. Their high GDP is derived from their resources, not from the true strenght of their economy.

- If britain once had such freedom, when it was in EFTA. But they ended up leaving because they understood that the EU isn't just about the economy, its about the construction of a huge bloc of interests right on its doorsteep, that could dwarf the interests (and influence) of Britain in Europe, and to some extent, the world. Now, let's assume that Britain indeed leaves the EU. Do you really think that any global company that wanted to come to Europe would install itself in Britain? Now you can reply "yes, because we would maitain free trade". And the logical answer is.. who said that the rest of Europe would allow that?

england is stupid it should join the euro straight away. its just a load of farmers saying that theylll lose profi when they dont understand a thing about it. Its just too patriotic. "we cant join the euro we'll be destroying th pund" Oh no we are going to swap our currency tio something that willl agin uus money. who can see problems with that

Who are you to say why the French and Dutch voted as they did? There is no one factor that drove either side of the referendum, and to suggest that they only didn't like the draft is looking at the problem with tunnel vision.

Though admittedly the draft was little more than a bunch of treaties held together with a bit of string, with the word "constitution" stamped on it.
Not sure about the French reasons, but the governments pro-constitution campaign was considered an insult by most of the Dutch intellectuals. Clear blue skies and happy children singing if you only vote "ja".. ahem.

I can't stand the EU. We should leave while we still can. I think we've done just about enough integrating already...

england is stupid it should join the euro straight away. its just a load of farmers saying that theylll lose profi when they dont understand a thing about it. Its just too patriotic. "we cant join the euro we'll be destroying th pund" Oh no we are going to swap our currency tio something that willl agin uus money. who can see problems with that

Odd way of looking at it...

I can't stand the EU. We should leave while we still can. I think we've done just about enough integrating already...

Exactly.

I can't stand the EU. We should leave while we still can. I think we've done just about enough integrating already...

Finally! Someone to share the burden of resisting bureaucrats...

Finally! Someone to share the burden of resisting bureaucrats...
We shall fight them together, brother!
*patriotic moment*

American shows like Lost and Friends are avidly watched in Britain, far more than in Europe.Hm... Lost and Friends get watched here a lot too. Among others. Not to mention all those silly British reality shows that get copied.
So they're dubbed... big difference.

I'm sick of the British complaining about the EU! They have gained so much through open trade etc. and they still are not happy, it angered me when they refused to join the Euro as it was just their old 'northern ireland like' stubbornness kicking in and them keeping the pound has caused the economy in here in Ireland much inconvenience!

They should be appreciate the EU, it has done so much for them!
Either they should embrase Europe or be stubborn idiots and quit. :mad:

We had free trade with Europe before we joined the EU, thanks to EFTA. And sorry if having a national currency in the North frustrates the South, but you've only got a unionist majority to blame for that.

What exactly has the EU done for Britain? We joined in 1973, and the late 1970s were one of the most disastrous periods for the British economy since the war. Hardly a boon!

Ireland has done well because when it joined, it was poor and backward. Thanks to structural funds, Ireland has one of the highest GDPs in Europe.

Hm... Lost and Friends get watched here a lot too. Among others. Not to mention all those silly British reality shows that get copied.
So they're dubbed... big difference.

Damn it Laerod! I knew you'd turn up! *shakes fists*

We had free trade with Europe before we joined the EU, thanks to EFTA.If you consider Europe as comprising anything not EU (or Communist Bloc). EFTA was a British effort to compete with the EU and it failed rather miserably.

Hm... Lost and Friends get watched here a lot too. Among others. Not to mention all those silly British reality shows that get copied.
So they're dubbed... big difference.

Why is it that Heathrow has more direct flights to New York than most other European capitals combined? It's because we are economically, politically and culturally closer to them than Europe.

How many British people listen to German pop music?
How many British listen to American pop music?

Damn it Laerod! I knew you'd turn up! *shakes fists*Yeah, but only because I've got nothing else to do right now ;)

If you consider Europe as comprising anything not EU (or Communist Bloc). EFTA was a British effort to compete with the EU and it failed rather miserably.
That's a simplistic way of putting it...
Also German pop music is generally rubbish

england is stupid it should join the euro straight away. its just a load of farmers saying that theylll lose profi when they dont understand a thing about it. Its just too patriotic. "we cant join the euro we'll be destroying th pund" Oh no we are going to swap our currency tio something that willl agin uus money. who can see problems with that

It isnt just farmers is is ordinary people who remember what changing into sterling did to the economy.

The EU is offering a great deal to turkey about joining the EU, which would be absolutly perfect for our country

If you consider Europe as comprising anything not EU (or Communist Bloc). EFTA was a British effort to compete with the EU and it failed rather miserably.

How is it a failure? Do the citizens of Lichtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have a poor standard of living?

Why is it that Heathrow has more direct flights to New York than most other European capitals combined? It's because we are economically, politically and culturally closer to them than Europe.And? Are you saying Germany was more American before since most ships for NYC left Bremen?

How many British people listen to German pop music?
How many British listen to American pop music?And how many Germans listen to German pop music (and then compare that to how many listen to American pop music)?
To be honest, there's probably more British listening to Scooter than Germans...

How is it a failure? Do the citizens of Lichtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have a poor standard of living?The British gave up on it and joined the EU (so did the Danes, the Irish, and the Swedes). Then it got associated with the EU. It failed in replacing the EU, which was what the British had wanted.

Cut that no borders immigration rubbish and the EU would be seen in a much better light by British people. Bring back the days of earning citizenship.

Who are you to say why the French and Dutch voted as they did? There is no one factor that drove either side of the referendum, and to suggest that they only didn't like the draft is looking at the problem with tunnel vision.
polls, research and news reports from the time are to say they voted as they did - not me.
but in the same vein then, who are you to say they voted as they did? if you can draw one conclusion from it, so can i.

the only "tunnel vision" here is seeing a no vote here as a blanket "no" to the EU when if you look more closely at the data, you find its not as simple as that.
Britain was out of the EU, we would be free to negotiate free trade agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and other major allies, which we can't as part of the EU. The EU is less of a free trade zone, and more of a customs union.
what a wonderfully short-termist attitude :rolleyes:

also, once again, blindly following the assumption that Britain can function - yet alone compete - on a global economic scale against the current and rising economic giants :rolleyes:

Also German pop music is generally rubbishEspecially those godawful casting show bands... :p

The British gave up on it and joined the EU (so did the Danes, the Irish, and the Swedes). Then it got associated with the EU. It failed in replacing the EU, which was what the British had wanted.

Utter tosh. The British wanted to join the EU in the early 1960s, but de Gaulle kept saying no, because it would cause a massive loss of French influence. Britain never wanted to undermine the EU, that's an unfounded assumption on your part.

Cut that no borders immigration rubbish and the EU would be seen in a much better light by British people. Bring back the days of earning citizenship.Please explain where you see a connection between no borders and citizenship.

Sorry, that was unclear and probably will be taken to sound a lot more xenophoic than intended. Basically, a lot of the British people (and even the government) are beginning to see a problem with the free movement between countries, and allowing people to settle anywhere within the EU that they want. Its not just a problem for the British. The British are doing to same by moving so many people to Spain and France.

Einsturzende Neubauten rules do.od

also, once again, blindly following the assumption that Britain can function - yet alone compete - on a global economic scale against the current and rising economic giants :rolleyes:

Why are you assuming it can't? China and India have the largest populations in the world, but do their citizens have a high standard of living?

In an age of global markets, size really doesn't matter, it's what you do with it.

Utter tosh. The British wanted to join the EU in the early 1960s, but de Gaulle kept saying no, because it would cause a massive loss of French influence. Britain never wanted to undermine the EU, that's an unfounded assumption on your part.The EU's been around longer than the 60s.
As for my assumption, is it that unrealistic that a country which entered the EU with a big portion of its population kicking and screaming and that still has a large lobby against further integration founded EFTA to provide a purely economic alternative to the EU?

Especially those godawful casting show bands... :p
I was think more of the Turkish-German rap band market... where did that spring from anyway?

I was think more of the Turkish-German rap band market... where did that spring from anyway?Berlin... :(

Why are you assuming it can't? China and India have the largest populations in the world, but do their citizens have a high standard of living?

In an age of global markets, size really doesn't matter, it's what you do with it.

Thanks to the commies, they aren't.

Your last sentence if all fine and dandy if you are being naive.

Ill give you an example. Let us assume that there is only Britain and China, both trading. Now China comes and says "bow down and ready yourselves to be sodomized or we shall stop the trade between our two nations and you will starve". As good British, you show them the finger and properly starve. Now, China won't starve, because they are so much bigger than you, that losing trade with Britain is a minor setback (while for you, is mayhem).

You must not dissociate the political component of the economical discussion.

The EU's been around longer than the 60s.
As for my assumption, is it that unrealistic that a country which entered the EU with a big portion of its population kicking and screaming and that still has a large lobby against further integration founded EFTA to provide a purely economic alternative to the EU?

It's not unrealistic, but it's still wrong. EFTA still acts as an economic-only version of the EU, without British support.

Why is it that Heathrow has more direct flights to New York than most other European capitals combined? It's because we are economically, politically and culturally closer to them than Europe.

the sum of our exports and/or imports between EU countries far outweighs those to/from the US. the EU countries have also been more long-standing trading partners.

get your facts right and look at real economic evidence, not anecdotal "evidence" of passenger flights :rolleyes:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=613
http://www.uktradeinfo.com/index.cfm?task=eubackcast

Berlin... :(
Ah *shakes head* I 've actually been there recently
"Ich bin ein Berliner" :p

the sum of our exports and/or imports between EU countries far outweighs those to/from the US. the EU countries have also been more long-standing trading partners.

get your facts right and look at real economic evidence, not anecdotal "evidence" of passenger flights :rolleyes:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=613
http://www.uktradeinfo.com/index.cfm?task=eubackcast

The reason we have most trade with Europe is because it is more expensive (thanks to tarriffs) to trade with countries outside EU/EFTA. Before we joined the EU, the Commonwealth had a higher percentage of our trade.

Our trading position has altered thanks to political decisions, not the other way round.

It's not unrealistic, but it's still wrong. EFTA still acts as an economic-only version of the EU, without British support.Yes, now it acts as an economic-only version of the EU.

Ah *shakes head* I 've actually been there recently
"Ich bin ein Berliner" :pYeah, I'm rather ashamed that those idiots are from the same town I am... :(

Yes, now it acts as an economic-only version of the EU.

That's all that it's always been! If you can find evidence to the contrary please show me.

That's all that it's always been! If you can find evidence to the contrary please show me.
1960: EFTA: Another Europe?

An alternative to the EEC Six emerges when the "Seven" - Austria, Denmark, Norway Portugal Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - set up EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. Finland, Iceland and Liechtenstein also join later.
Like the EEC, EFTA aims to establish free trade in western Europe but it differs in that it opposes uniform external tariffs and does not want to put member countries under the authority of supranational institutions.

Eighteen months after EFTA is set up, its driving force, the UK, applies to join the EEC. UK membership of the EEC is stalled when French President Charles de Gaulle vetoes it, but eventually all but three of EFTA's members end up leaving the Association to join the EEC. Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2001/inside_europe/milestones/1960.stm)
The EFTA was set up as an alternative to the EU, but it didn't manage that.

Yeah, I'm rather ashamed that those idiots are from the same town I am... :(
Berline seemed really nice to me... a little too clean and organised though.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2001/inside_europe/milestones/1960.stm)
The EFTA was set up as an alternative to the EU, but it didn't manage that.

Countries are allowed to change their minds. The fact that the remaining members are the wealthiest in Europe perhaps could teach the rest of Europe a lesson.

i say ditch it, it seems its just not doing much in the way of positive change in the UK. but of course maybe i'm only noticing the negatives, there would have to be some kind of a review weighing the pros and cons obviously before any decision would be made.

I really wish the would be a referendum in Britain- then finally this would be done once and for all.

Since joining, there has been a consistent section whining and bitching about the fact "We're losing our power". Newsflash: your power went a long time ago- and it ain't comin' back.

If you leave, then go and don't apply again. I don't think the rest of Europe could or should have to put up with that amount of bellyaching.

I really wish the would be a referendum in Britain- then finally this would be done once and for all.

Since joining, there has been a consistent section whining and bitching about the fact "We're losing our power". Newsflash: your power went a long time ago- and it ain't comin' back.

If you leave, then go and don't apply again. I don't think the rest of Europe could or should have to put up with that amount of bellyaching.

Good idea!

But which major party would promise a referendum in a manifesto? If the Tories did they'd get mauled in the press for being out of touch, despite a majoprity being in favour of a referendum.

Good point, some in Britain are still suffering from Empire-withdrawal symptoms. Luckily their generation is all but extinct.

Good idea!

But which major party would promise a referendum in a manifesto? If the Tories did they'd get mauled in the press for being out of touch, despite a majoprity being in favour of a referendum.

No, the Tories would get mauled for advocating pulling out of Europe. you need a referendum commission to put an equal and unbiased point-by-point case across. Whether it be Labour, Lib Dems or the Conservatives who propose the idea of a referendum- the acting body 'hosting' it would be independent.

Good, sort yourselves out then come back and tell the rest of Europe what you'll bee doing. We'll hold our breath in anticipation...

We can't change the EU, because we don't make up a high enough proportion of its population. Even if we did, France and Germany wouldn't abide by the rules (there are a host of examples, British beef, Stability and Growth etc...).

Suggesting that we are culturally closer to Europe is an easy claim to make, but do you have any examples? American shows like Lost and Friends are avidly watched in Britain, far more than in Europe. In many European countries Greens participate in government, a laughable suggestion in the UK (unless you're talking about the Scottish talking shop).

In France and Germany, unions run the show. Ever heard of Thatcher?

Europe is far more impressed by philosophers and acadmeics than the USA or Britain. How many Brits know anything about Voltaire?

It's easy to pass Brits off as annexed Americans, but look at our history, our attitude to multi-culturalism, the publics attitude to authority, our attitude to religion and sex and freedom of speech. We may be haunted by conservatism in the upper classes, but in the public, where the real Britain lies, we are far more European.

And as for Lost and Friends, that's just another example of how European we are; we can appreciate art from all sorts of countries and nations. How often do you see a French cinema or British comedy on US channels?

Europe should act as one country, with free borders (where not a mad idea), free trade, all Euro currency, that would rock.

(Lets bunk the train to France LOL)

It's easy to pass Brits off as annexed Americans, but look at our history, our attitude to multi-culturalism, the publics attitude to authority, our attitude to religion and sex and freedom of speech. We may be haunted by conservatism in the upper classes, but in the public, where the real Britain lies, we are far more European.

And as for Lost and Friends, that's just another example of how European we are; we can appreciate art from all sorts of countries and nations. How often do you see a French cinema or British comedy on US channels?

When you refer to America, you seem to only be referring to the republican heartlands. The coastal liberals are more European than the Brits! THe difference in America is that there is a wider difference of opinion.

Just out of interest, have you ever met any of the "upper classees"? I also think you need a reality check on the British public's attitude to Europe. It certainly isn't upper-class people who chant "Two World Wars and one World Cup" at England-Germany internationals.

If Britain is so multicultural and European, why do we never get any European comedies or films on TV? America is quite into British comedy (those who get it) as the many fanms of Monty Python on this forum will testify.

Europe should act as one country, with free borders (where not a mad idea), free trade, all Euro currency, that would rock.

(Lets bunk the train to France LOL)

I agree with this statement

a federal E.U nation is a must if we won't to compete economically and politically with future world powers such as Brazil and China

it has also succeeded in its goal of not having another world war

Good point, some in Britain are still suffering from Empire-withdrawal symptoms. Luckily their generation is all but extinct.

If that generation and their ideals are almost extinct, why do 50% of the general public sympathise with them?

By empire-withdrawal symptoms, I'm assuming you equate that with a desire for national independence.

If that generation and their ideals are almost extinct, why do 50% of the general public sympathise with them?

misinformation and not thinking about the issue objectively.

i mean i have friends who, when i question why they don't like the EU, simply say "well, we don't like France do we?"
another friend who voted UKIP (indipendence party) said that 'Britain is Great and the local high street looks worse than it did 10 years ago... [ergo that's all Labour and the EU's fault, somehow]"

i mean that's fucking retarded :headbang:
but i'm sure they are relatively indicative of a large proportion of the population who don't give the issue due consideration and just accept the euroskeptic pap put out by the media and the tories.

(these friends are intelligent and decently educated by the way, not stupid, just misguided)

I agree with this statement

a federal E.U nation is a must if we won't to compete economically and politically with future world powers such as Brazil and China

it has also succeeded in its goal of not having another world war
agreed. totally.

I think it is in the interest of both Britain (nationalism not withstanding) and Europe that they integrate and join the euro.

I would have to say to leave the EU in its current form. It's too powerful over its member states without being fully accountable to the states' citizens. The EU parliament is virtually a rubberstamp that only recieved a very low voting turnout.

I wouldn't be against the principle of a European federal state, as long as almost all domestic power lies with state governments, but the EU is too bureaucratic and run by the unelected fat cats. So i'll use my favourite cliché: Pro europe, anti EU!

Europe should act as one country, with free borders (where not a mad idea), free trade, all Euro currency, that would rock.

(Lets bunk the train to France LOL)

Vive to that and an éclair to both of us!

England should stay part of the EU. Simply because in the next few years we shall gain the presidentship. This can mean we could work towards a EU that would help England as wel as the other countries of the EU. I don't think we should be greedy and say that the EU does nothing for us because there is alot the EU does do for us. But we must first of all try and make it an easy partnershop. Not what it is now.

England should stay part of the EU. Simply because in the next few years we shall gain the presidentship. This can mean we could work towards a EU that would help England as wel as the other countries of the EU. I don't think we should be greedy and say that the EU does nothing for us because there is alot the EU does do for us. But we must first of all try and make it an easy partnershop. Not what it is now.

We have the presidency at the moment, and a hell of a lot of good it is doing us. Tony cant do what he wants about the WTO because he has to remain neutral and he cant do anthing about the budget because of france.

What does the EU do for us? It saps our money away from us, doesnt let us make changes we want and takes power way from our country.

People here may be right in saying we wont be able to support ourselfs without the EU, but we will if we leave and keep trade links we will be able to trade with the other countrys and we wont have the beurocrats dragging us down. We will get the good parts and leave the bad parts.

We have the presidency at the moment, and a hell of a lot of good it is doing us. Tony cant do what he wants about the WTO because he has to remain neutral and he cant do anthing about the budget because of france.

What does the EU do for us? It saps our money away from us, doesnt let us make changes we want and takes power way from our country.

People here may be right in saying we wont be able to support ourselfs without the EU, but we will if we leave and keep trade links we will be able to trade with the other countrys and we wont have the beurocrats dragging us down. We will get the good parts and leave the bad parts.

There ain't such a thing a free lunch ;)

The EU "saps" money from you, because you are a wealthier country. The EU gives money to you, because not all of your regions are as wealthy as the average. It is a meta-government.

And if you think GB can leave the EU and keep up the trade with all EU-members as before, you are sadly mistaken about the mechanisms of protected markets, as the EU in itself establishes one. Say hello to protection-taxes.

Quotations from Syawla...

"Anyone who thinks Britain should leave the EU knows nothing about economics."

I beg to differ...

"As for the idea of leaving but having the free trade, such arrangements are impossible without being in the situation of say Switzerland and Norway, who are in the trade zone, but have no say on the economic laws therein. You cannot have any system; political, ecnomic or whatever that pleases everyone all of the time, but you must make do and work with what you get.
Sure, there is much wrong with the EU (e.g. the C.A.P, and some of its laws really do stink. But as a package it has done nothing but good for this country and europe!"

If Switzerland and Norway are in such a weak economic bargaining position, why do they have much higher GDPs per capita than the average EU state? If Britain was out of the EU, we would be free to negotiate free trade agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and other major allies, which we can't as part of the EU. The EU is less of a free trade zone, and more of a customs union.

They do have higher GDPs, but have you actually been to those countries. If you think that there is a rich-poor divide in Britain then you should see there.

There ain't such a thing a free lunch ;)

The EU "saps" money from you, because you are a wealthier country. The EU gives money to you, because not all of your regions are as wealthy as the average. It is a meta-government.

And if you think GB can leave the EU and keep up the trade with all EU-members as before, you are sadly mistaken about the mechanisms of protected markets, as the EU in itself establishes one. Say hello to protection-taxes.

That is exactally what the Eu is offering Turkey at thins moment. They dont want turkey to be a full member so they are offering them the trade links that the EU gives but none of the other things. If then can offer it to Turkey then why cant we have it also.

That is exactally what the Eu is offering Turkey at thins moment. They dont want turkey to be a full member so they are offering them the trade links that the EU gives but none of the other things. If then can offer it to Turkey then why cant we have it also.

Okay, if you want your trade-rights cut back to the level the Turkey is offered in the "privileged partnership", go on.

That I mentioned that the EU also spends money on GB ... and not little ... you might have ignored. In fact GB gets a allowance on their fee already, that is a little bit unfounded in reasoning (lesser agricultural spending ... but other members like Germany spend even less and get no discount).

The EU does redistribute money on a european level. The same the british government does on country-level to bring the regions to the same standard of living. To what goal? Better living, bigger market.