NationStates Jolt Archive

Fairly self explanatory really.

PS for UK residents, if you actually want a referendum consider signing this petition:

http://www.letthepeopledecide.co.uk/home.htm

Just don't vote UKIP, it's a waste of time (except for at European elections)

Of course we should. Just because they fuck everything up, are corrupt to the eyeballs and like to make us do things that are bad for the country...

wait...

I'm suddenly unsure.

wait... I thought there was no way out??

So the U.S. can say 'I told you it wouldn't work'?

I thought Europeans had more drive to prove us wrong than that. :p

What? Quit the EU and get involved with the US instead?

Here, show me your wrists. ... and here's a knife. Don't cross the street.:rolleyes:

So the U.S. can say 'I told you it wouldn't work'?

I thought Europeans had more drive to prove us wrong than that. :p

Who are these "Europeans" of which you speak?

Europe is a continent, not a nation.

Who are these "Europeans" of which you speak?

Europe is a continent, not a nation.

So Europeans are people from that continent, fucktard.

What? Quit the EU and get involved with the US instead?

Here, show me your wrists. ... and here's a knife. Don't cross the street.:rolleyes:

Why do we have to join the USA? Can't we just be indpendent, and do what's best for Britain?

In case you're about to, please don't start talking about how we'd suddenlty become poor and irrelevant. In an era of global trade, nations who don't trade with each other both miss out.

Even though I won't be directly affected by the EU (American), I still dislike the EU - then again I see almost every attempt to expant govt and create political/economic unions as bureaucratic and time-wasting....

So Europeans are people from that continent, fucktard.

If they don't have a vaguely coherent identity, why label them with a single term?

"Fucktard?" Grow up.

In case you're about to, please don't start talking about how we'd suddenlty become poor and irrelevant. In an era of global trade, nations who don't trade with each other both miss out.

You wouldn't; hell, you'd probably be better off because you wouldn't have to spend billions propping up farmers in France.

Why do we have to join the USA? Can't we just be indpendent, and do what's best for Britain?

In case you're about to, please don't start talking about how we'd suddenlty become poor and irrelevant. In an era of global trade, nations who don't trade with each other both miss out.

Um, why is this odd? Independant? But what about your "counter" concerning global trade? How can you do what's best for Britain in a global market? I don't think any 1st world nation can make that claim. I know citizens of the US like to think we're a global powerhouse but so far the EU is kicking ass and taking names. US is in trouble in all reality.

So the U.S. can say 'I told you it wouldn't work'?

I thought Europeans had more drive to prove us wrong than that. :p

There are those amongst the British that would be more comfortable as another state of the US. Personally I thought they should have been fucked out on their ear when they refused to adopt the Euro. They should either be all the way in, or all the way out.

I think Britain should stay out of the EU, just because I say so. Or so they keep their national idenity.

Um, why is this odd? Independant? But what about your "counter" concerning global trade? How can you do what's best for Britain in a global market? I don't think any 1st world nation can make that claim. I know citizens of the US like to think we're a global powerhouse but so far the EU is kicking ass and taking names. US is in trouble in all reality.

Yes, stagnant economies, inflation, high unemployment with stagnant job growth, a massive demographic problem and high and complicated taxes really threaten the US. The US is booming while Europe is stagnant. Although there are hopes of recovery, lack of action will nip it in the bud.

If the EU reforms itself, it will be a real competitor Otherwise, it's still going to be behind the US in economic growth and prospects. They've got huge problems that aren't going to solve themselves.

the EU is kicking ass and taking names. .

ROFL

what makes you think that? High unemployment, slow growth, demographic collapse... yeah, they're doing great :p

If they don't have a vaguely coherent identity, why label them with a single term?

We have as much of a coherent identity as any other group. We are people from Europe, just like Russians are people from Russia, or Catholics are people who practice catholicism.

"Fucktard?" Grow up.

N3vAr!

We have as much of a coherent identity as any other group. We are people from Europe, just like Russians are people from Russia, or Catholics are people who practice catholicism.



N3vAr!

What unites Europeans though? What sets them specifically apart from other national groups? And do you count Russians as European?

Scotland should become independent and join the E.U england can do what she likes

What unites Europeans though? What sets them specifically apart from other national groups? And do you count Russians as European?

As a nation, yes, I do. Moscow lies this side of the Urals. But there are Asian Russians and European Russians in terms of individuals and further sub-divisions from "Russian".

And geography and politics are what makes Europeans European, same as for any country. Just face it: people from Europe are European.

Scotland should become independent and join the E.U england can do what she likes

Yeah! And watch Scotland become a third-world nation overnight! Who-hoo! Sounds good to me. And we can finally stop subsidising the Scots. Lets do it!

Scotland should become independent and join the E.U england can do what she likes

But does independence within the EU really mean anything?

So Europeans are people from that continent, fucktard.



thats a kickass word "fucktard"

thanks buddy for helping me with my word of the day :)

thats a kickass word "fucktard"

thanks buddy for helping me with my word of the day :)

Always happy to help.:D

The EU needs a total redisign, but yes. It's the best option for ecconomic stability.

Meh. Mind you I'm an idealist who oneday sees the whole world united as one nation, so you might wanna ignore me!

Yeah! And watch Scotland become a third-world nation overnight! Who-hoo! Sounds good to me. And we can finally stop subsidising the Scots. Lets do it!

Actually given the revenue from the North Sea oil and the size of the Scottish population, you'll find its probably them subsidising you.

Actually given the revenue from the North Sea oil and the size of the Scottish population, you'll find its probably them subsidising you.

what 5,062,011 people pay more than 50.1 million poeple in taxes and revunues, the South East of England has More GDP then Scotland

what 5,062,011 people pay more than 50.1 million poeple in taxes and revunues, the South East of England has More GDP then Scotland

If you can back that second part up, then you win...

Yeah! And watch Scotland become a third-world nation overnight! Who-hoo! Sounds good to me. And we can finally stop subsidising the Scots. Lets do it!


you wouldnt need to subsidise the scots if you didnt keep taking OUR oil profits and spending them outside of Scotland

ooh here is one link
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/index27.aspx

http://www.bized.ac.uk/current/leisure/2004_5/300505.htm

If you can back that second part up, then you win...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=420
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/rgva1205.pdf
http://www.landvaluetax.org/ukregns.htm

SE England hammers us scots in gdp/gva, I'm afraid! He wins :p

If you can back that second part up, then you win...

Here y'go ...

Regional variation

The strength of the UK economy varies from region to region. GDP, and GDP per capita is highest in London. The following table shows the GDP (2002) per capita of the 12 NUTS:2 areas, with data supplied by Eurostat.
Rank Place GDP per capita in Euros
1 London, England 40 068
2 South East, England 27 104
3 Scotland 23 776

(Source: Wikipedia)

Not just South East but London too.

As far as 'It's Scotland's oil wealth we'll be OK' argument. It's all gonna run out soon anway. Within a few years the whole of the UK will be a net importer of energy. So go ahead, go independent with your so-called 'oil-wealth'. Unless Scotland adopted full-blown capitalism (rather than the distinctly socialist feel to the place) then it wouldn't last a minute before becoming a basket-case economy.

As for Scotland subsidising England? Laughable. Ever heard of the Barnett Formula?

You wouldn't; hell, you'd probably be better off because you wouldn't have to spend billions propping up farmers in France.

Someone doesn't watch the news. CAP is comming to an end.

Yes, stagnant economies, inflation, high unemployment with stagnant job growth, a massive demographic problem and high and complicated taxes really threaten the US. The US is booming while Europe is stagnant. Although there are hopes of recovery, lack of action will nip it in the bud.

That's old Europe. New Europe is in a much much better position. And reforms are underway.

Someone doesn't watch the news. CAP is comming to an end.

Really? This is news to me. And good news if it is true! The CAP has been a policy with monumentally evil effects and it's definitely time for it to brought to a stop.

Do you have reference on the demise of the CAP? I'd like to go and gloat ... er ... read up on it.

Ta

6 pints

Here y'go ...
~~el snip~~

Thanks.

Nice name, btw:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minoriteeburg
thats a kickass word "fucktard"

thanks buddy for helping me with my word of the day

Always happy to help.Always happy to help.:D

I like the word fucktard too. I like it so much, I am going to call my boss it in work tomorrow :p

Thanks.

Nice name, btw:)


Awww thanx.

Right, enough of this, I'm off to bed :0o zzzZZZzzz

I like the word fucktard too. I like it so much, I am going to call my boss it in work tomorrow :p

good plan. They gave me some extra pieces of paper last time I did that. Bargain!

Really? This is news to me. And good news if it is true! The CAP has been a policy with monumentally evil effects and it's definitely time for it to brought to a stop.

Do you have reference on the demise of the CAP? I'd like to go and gloat ... er ... read up on it.

Ta

6 pints

I believe it was agreed to eliminate the CAP by 2012. I'm looking for online article now.

The EU is a free trade zone. Restricting trade is necessary if all sorts of economic dirty tricks can be played. Otherwise, restriction is just harming the economy and the standard of living, because restriction introduces inefficiencies. It'd be a setback to not only the UK, but its European trade partners if UK began the mercantilist tariffing and wiener-measuring contests known in the US-EU trade relations (steel tariffs anyone?).

The UK's attitude towards the European Union is one of the main problems that no progress has been made in the EU. During the British presidency of the EU nothing was acomplished. At the end of it all they still had the nerve to ask for their money back. I'm afraid that's not enough. As far as I'm concerned if the UK is interested in the EU for it's common market alone they can simply buzz off. If they are interested in creating a true federalist European Union then they have alot of attitude changing to do.

The UK's attitude towards the European Union is one of the main problems that no progress has been made in the EU. During the British presidency of the EU nothing was acomplished. At the end of it all they still had the nerve to ask for their money back. I'm afraid that's not enough. As far as I'm concerned if the UK is interested in the EU for it's common market alone they can simply buzz off. If they are interested in creating a true federalist European Union then they have alot of attitude changing to do.

Mate, I've been coming round to the idea of the EU as a _direct_ result of NS arguments.

This piece of pissy, willful misunderstanding doesn't help me or any other potential UK pro-EUist come round to your way of thinking.

If there's gonna be a referendum in the UK, and it loses (seeing as to how only 25% of people in the UK actually think leaving is a good idea...which would be the 25% who read The Sun), would that mean you would quit your whining and help make the EU work properly?

The EU is a free trade zone. Restricting trade is necessary if all sorts of economic dirty tricks can be played. Otherwise, restriction is just harming the economy and the standard of living, because restriction introduces inefficiencies. It'd be a setback to not only the UK, but its European trade partners if UK began the mercantilist tariffing and wiener-measuring contests known in the US-EU trade relations (steel tariffs anyone?).
Stop that!

If there's gonna be a referendum in the UK, and it loses (seeing as to how only 25% of people in the UK actually think leaving is a good idea...which would be the 25% who read The Sun), would that mean you would quit your whining and help make the EU work properly?


If you're talking to me, this is a reply; if not, it's a response to your general question!:p

Assuming there was a referendum (hahaha! funny one!), and assuming it resulted in a 'stay in europe' result, the UK would stay in the EU. It's not obliged to do _anything_ more than that.

As it happens, I'm beginning to see that the EU could conceivably serve a great purpose. It's an abysmal start, corrupt, conservative, massive democratic deficit - only some of the trade setup really works well! - but the ideals behind it are ideals I can support. If it were up to me, I'd push for massive EU reform, but I'd join fully to do so.

All the time though, I'd be remembering that anything a UK parliament does, a subsequent one can undo. I can't imagine a realistic situation where being in the EU hurts Britain more than being out of it does, but you always need a getout clause just in case.

If they don't have a vaguely coherent identity, why label them with a single term?

"Fucktard?" Grow up.

So it's okay to call people based on the colour of their skin, but not okay to refer to them by their continent of origin.

Indeed.

If there's gonna be a referendum in the UK, and it loses (seeing as to how only 25% of people in the UK actually think leaving is a good idea...which would be the 25% who read The Sun), would that mean you would quit your whining and help make the EU work properly?

For a start, the last poll taken showed that 48% of the British public wanted to leave the EU (39% in favour of staying in, the rest undecided). Secondly, most of the people in Britain who want to leave the EU read the Telegraph, the Times or the Daily Mail.

Most Sun readers find Page 3 more interesting than European politics (not without justification!)

The UK's been the mamma nation of half the world - not all of us stuck with her, but we oughta have some respect for her anyway... no freaking way they should just join up with the rest of Europe and join up in lock step with the status quo. Not if they know what's good for them.

The rest of europe generally doesn't like that, because they don't like it that the Brittish have it better than they are and won't dumb themselves down.

Elgesh']If you're talking to me, this is a reply; if not, it's a response to your general question!:p
Oh, just a general shout in the direction of the Euro-Sceptics who generally block everything but never have constructive ideas.
They do enjoy manipulating polls though. F*cking Halfwits.

Elgesh']Assuming there was a referendum (hahaha! funny one!), and assuming it resulted in a 'stay in europe' result, the UK would stay in the EU. It's not obliged to do _anything_ more than that.
It might send the government (and especially the aforementioned halfwits) the message that it is indeed no longer 1945.
If you're not happy with the current EU - fine. Who is?
But instead of bitching and moaning about it, the idea is to change it, to make suggestions and work to implement them.

Elgesh']I can't imagine a realistic situation where being in the EU hurts Britain more than being out of it does, but you always need a getout clause just in case.
Strange really how the UK is the only country though were there always was, and probably will be for some time yet, this panic of losing sovereignty. Germany doesn't have a get-out clause. France doesn't have one. Poland doesn't have one, and we really didn't treat them very well.
It's only the British who somehow think they have to be different.

Britain always was part of Europe.
What happened in Europe directly influenced what happened in Britain. That glorified river between Britain and France does not and never did constitute a meaningful division.

But just for some balance...the French also have all sorts of problems with their past. I'm afraid it seems to be some sort of a painful reaction to the end of former glory.
Sorry this is in German, and I couldn't find a translation, but perhaps some of you can understand it.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich

It should not, because no nation should. Death to the EU!!11!

Oh, just a general shout in the direction of the Euro-Sceptics who generally block everything but never have constructive ideas.
They do enjoy manipulating polls though. F*cking Halfwits.


It might send the government (and especially the aforementioned halfwits) the message that it is indeed no longer 1945.
If you're not happy with the current EU - fine. Who is?
But instead of bitching and moaning about it, the idea is to change it, to make suggestions and work to implement them.


Strange really how the UK is the only country though were there always was, and probably will be for some time yet, this panic of losing sovereignty. Germany doesn't have a get-out clause. France doesn't have one. Poland doesn't have one, and we really didn't treat them very well.
It's only the British who somehow think they have to be different.

Britain always was part of Europe.
What happened in Europe directly influenced what happened in Britain. That glorified river between Britain and France does not and never did constitute a meaningful division.

But just for some balance...the French also have all sorts of problems with their past. I'm afraid it seems to be some sort of a painful reaction to the end of former glory.
Sorry this is in German, and I couldn't find a translation, but perhaps some of you can understand it.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich

Manipulating polls? That's so typical of euro-nationalists: whenever the public votes against their vision of a super-state (as the French and Dutch did last year) they say that either they voted no for the wrong reasons, or that the sceptics maniulated the polls. Perhaps they should look up the meaning of democracy, and how if it wasn't for Britain western Europe wouldn't have it...

If you think about it, the UK has very good reasons to be the least enthusiastic EU member. We have always had truly global interests (unlike say Germany or Italy), and further integration could endanger that. The enthusiasm of the other members can also be explained for selfish reasons: France wants to dominate Europe now that its empire and influence are gone, Germany lost any self-confidence and indpendent-mindedness in 1945, and all the others have joined up for the handouts.

Britain has always been part of Europe? We speak a Germanic language and go on holidays to Europe, but politically and culturally we are so very different. Wonderful continental inventions like communism and fascism never seem to catch on in Britain like they do on the continent, and we don'[t seem as terrified about loosing our distinct identity to the Americans as much as continental Europe does.

Economically, socially and politically Britain is Mid-Atlantic, not European.

Strange really how the UK is the only country though were there always was, and probably will be for some time yet, this panic of losing sovereignty. Germany doesn't have a get-out clause. France doesn't have one. Poland doesn't have one, and we really didn't treat them very well.
It's only the British who somehow think they have to be different.

Britain always was part of Europe.
What happened in Europe directly influenced what happened in Britain. That glorified river between Britain and France does not and never did constitute a meaningful division.

Underlined - sorry, but more fool them! Don't hurt your own folk based on _your_ selfishness.

the rest & underlined - you're very welcome to your opinion that the UK is just another european country. I agree with it for the most part, actually. But I do object to foreigners telling me how to live my life, and how to think of myself and my country.

There, you see - a tribal reaction based on _nothing_! No major differences between us at all, but you elicited a totally unreasonable response from me with your moderate, reasoned opinion! :) Some of us in the UK just feel different from europe, and I think you're wildly underestimating the psychological, for want of a better word - do I mean sociological? - importance of being an 'island nation'. I've travelled through most of europe, the USA, bits of the muslim world, and I've never felt a stronger connection with europe and europeans than with the USA/muslim countries viscerally.

For a start, the last poll taken showed that 48% of the British public wanted to leave the EU (39% in favour of staying in, the rest undecided).
Link, Link....I want a Link please!
And remember...it needs to be an unbiased source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1678066,00.html).

Link, Link....I want a Link please!
And remember...it needs to be an unbiased source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1678066,00.html).

http://www.ukip.org/abc_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=767

For Immediate Release – 09:00hrs 16th May 2004

48% want EU withdrawal as UKIP support hits double figures

A YouGov poll has shown for the first time in 30 years that a vast majority of voters support leaving the European Union.

The poll asked “If there were a referendum now on whether Britain should stay in or get out of the European Union, how would you vote?”. The results were ‘Should stay in’ 39%, ‘Should leave’ 48% with 13% undecided.


When asked “How do you intend to vote in the European elections on June 10th?”, the results were Conservative 27%, Labour 27%, Liberal Democrat 16%, UKIP 10%, Greens 3%, SNP/PC 2%, BNP 4%, Others 2%, Respect 0% with ‘not going to vote’ polling 10%.

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said, “Our task between now and June 10th is clearly to make voters aware of our message. With 48% supporting EU withdrawal, and with UKIP showing a significant jump in the polls, we are on course to make huge gains.


“It is quite clear that British voters have been seeking a way to say NO. A successful campaign and a large number of UKIP MEPs will halt European federalism in its tracks. Mr Blair would not dare sign the EU Constitution with such a majority of voters so clearly opposed to it.” ENDS



Notes to Editors:

YouGov conducted the poll between 12th and 14th May with a sample of 1823 voters. Raw data is attached below. The questions were asked in the sequence as they appear above. Regional data will be released at a later date.





While it does come from the UKIP website, the size of the sample and the fact that it was done by a reputable polling organisation suggest that there is no bias in the data.

Link, Link....I want a Link please!
And remember...it needs to be an unbiased source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,1678066,00.html).
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:MeRGqnmWOG0J:www.globalbritain.org/BBC/48_LP_Analysis_OpinionPolls_.pdf+%22leave+the+eu%22+poll+uk&hl=en

Mori and the annual social attitudes survey OK? In this analysis of polls in Britain, 50.3% wanted the UK out of the EU in Nov. '99, for example.

I disagree with them, but I respect/understand their point of view.

We have always had truly global interests (unlike say Germany or Italy), and further integration could endanger that.
Actually, further isolation is the greater threat.

The enthusiasm of the other members can also be explained for selfish reasons: France wants to dominate Europe now that its empire and influence are gone, Germany lost any self-confidence and indpendent-mindedness in 1945, and all the others have joined up for the handouts.
It can be explained that way...it wouldn't be a valid explanation, but then, since when did that matter, hey?

Wonderful continental inventions like communism and fascism never seem to catch on in Britain like they do on the continent...
Strange how they didn't in France either, hey?
Ever read the "Hitler and his Choice" Essay by Churchill from 1935?
One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.
We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace of mind to the Great Germanic nation.
Britain was only against Fascism because it happened to be attacked by a Fascist Nation (or the equivalent of it, it was Britain of course who attack Germany). You're imagining things.

...and we don't seem as terrified about loosing our distinct identity to the Americans as much as continental Europe does.
What are you talking about? Neither is Poland, or Denmark, or Germany. The only country in which there is a sizable movement to perserve national identity is France, and they are a strange case as you would be aware.

Economically, socially and politically Britain is Mid-Atlantic, not European.
http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

Elgesh']Some of us in the UK just feel different from europe, and I think you're wildly underestimating the psychological, for want of a better word - do I mean sociological? - importance of being an 'island nation'.
Perhaps...but Tony's right. Those times are over.
Britain's times are over, just like France's are, just like Germany's are.
Militarily, all that is left is NATO.
Economically, all that is left is the EU FTA.
And Politically, all that is left is a choice between being a meaningless speck in the UN, or a political EU.´

It's foolish to think that a tiny country, no longer with any sort of technological advantage over its peers could affect anything.
Unless of course Britain manages to turn itself into the new Vatican. Then it could feel all important.

Actually, further isolation is the greater threat.

How would leaving the EU isolate us dimplomatically? On the contrary, Britain could act as a force for good in the world by getting rid of all its agricultural subsidies, and entering genuinely free and fair trade agreements with developing countries. considering that they will be the powerbases of the future, that's hardly a bad move. How is it progressive to tie ourselve's up in a super-state facing economic, demographic and social decline?

It can be explained that way...it wouldn't be a valid explanation, but then, since when did that matter, hey?

If you'd like to exaplin how it isn't valid I'd be most greatful...


Strange how they didn't in France either, hey?
Ever read the "Hitler and his Choice" Essay by Churchill from 1935?

Jean Marie Le Pen (a fascist) got 16% of the most recent French presidential election vote. Check your info...


Britain was only against Fascism because it happened to be attacked by a Fascist Nation (or the equivalent of it, it was Britain of course who attack Germany). You're imagining things.

On the contrary, Britain was not attacked by Germany at all. Britain made a commitment to defend democracy in Europe by guaranteeing the independence of Poland, and when the Germans violated Polish independence Britain stepped into the fray.

What are you talking about? Neither is Poland, or Denmark, or Germany. The only country in which there is a sizable movement to perserve national identity is France, and they are a strange case as you would be aware.

The rise of the far-right in countries as disparate as Belgium and Slovakia show that there is increasing anger in Europe of American cultural dominance. The fact that a Germany economics minister vetoed a French takeover of Atlas Elektronik shows that even Germany is worried about maintaing a strong national identity.





Perhaps...but Tony's right. Those times are over.
Britain's times are over, just like France's are, just like Germany's are.
Militarily, all that is left is NATO.
Economically, all that is left is the EU FTA.
And Politically, all that is left is a choice between being a meaningless speck in the UN, or a political EU.´

Size is not equal to power. This is something that shows the true stupidity of the EU enthusiasts: they think that bigger must equal better. Switzerland is not part of the EU, yet they enjoy a fantastic standard of living and have plenty of international organisations based there. Iceland is a barren rock in the middle of the Atlantic, but it somehow manages to have the third-highest living standard in Europe.

It's foolish to think that a tiny country, no longer with any sort of technological advantage over its peers could affect anything.
Unless of course Britain manages to turn itself into the new Vatican. Then it could feel all important.

It's equally foolish to think that a large, bickering ragbag of disparate nations with shrinking populations and economies will be able to affect anything.

Perhaps...but Tony's right. Those times are over.
Britain's times are over, just like France's are, just like Germany's are.
Militarily, all that is left is NATO.
Economically, all that is left is the EU FTA.
And Politically, all that is left is a choice between being a meaningless speck in the UN, or a political EU.´

It's foolish to think that a tiny country, no longer with any sort of technological advantage over its peers could affect anything.
Unless of course Britain manages to turn itself into the new Vatican. Then it could feel all important.

Yes! Now you're talking :D Currently, the way things are going and are projected to go, it's daft for any small country to be out on its own when it could be part of something politically influencial (better a smaller slice of a bigger pie, as it were), more economically powerful, and better protected militarily. Within europe, working with other countries is by far the best way to do this - hence, and idea like the EU.

The EU has serious problems in delivering all this, and delivering it at all fairly and democratically, but the potential is there, and it'd take a fool not to want in.

Equally, the situations and context that make the EU desirable at the moment will not be there forever. It'd take a different kind of fool to sign away his country in perpetuity without a way to leave the group if _that_ became in his best interests. Again, I can't see a situation where that'd be for the best, but it's a concern if you don't address it. Maybe it'll be soooo good in the milk and honey land of the future, no one'll ever want to leave, and that's fine too! But there's no guarantee, and a diplomatic exit strategy is a reasonable requirement.

Elgesh']Yes! Now you're talking :D Currently, the way things are going and are projected to go, it's daft for any small country to be out on its own when it could be part of something politically influencial (better a smaller slice of a bigger pie, as it were), more economically powerful, and better protected militarily. Within europe, working with other countries is by far the best way to do this - hence, and idea like the EU.

The EU has serious problems in delivering all this, and delivering it at all fairly and democratically, but the potential is there, and it'd take a fool not to want in.

Equally, the situations and context that make the EU desirable at the moment will not be there forever. It'd take a different kind of fool to sign away his country in perpetuity without a way to leave the group if _that_ became in his best interests. Again, I can't see a situation where that'd be for the best, but it's a concern if you don't address it. Maybe it'll be soooo good in the milk and honey land of the future, no one'll ever want to leave, and that's fine too! But there's no guarantee, and a diplomatic exit strategy is a reasonable requirement.

Europe has no military value. Most of the countries have not faught in wars since 1945, and their levels of military spending show that they are quite happy for the Americans to continue paying for their defence. Besides, we are already protected by NATO, so why create a specifically European force... it's not like it would be effective.


If this whole theory of amalgamation of smaller nations makes so much sense, why did Yugoslavia descend into civil war? Why did the Central Asian republics break away from Russia? Why are Scottish nationalists asking for independence?

Again, this assumption that bigger is better has no basis in reality. China is big; do you want to live there?

Europe has no military value. Most of the countries have not faught in wars since 1945, and their levels of military spending show that they are quite happy for the Americans to continue paying for their defence. Besides, we are already protected by NATO, so why create a specifically European force... it's not like it would be effective.

I don't think that's fair; I said the potential was there, not the final product :) It needs an awful lot of work, but a job well started is a job half done... better to start early than try to integrate mismatched units later on.

Elgesh']I don't think that's fair; I said the potential was there, not the final product :) It needs an awful lot of work, but a job well started is a job half done... better to start early than try to integrate mismatched units later on.

What's the point in going through the rigmarole of changing everything though, just so we end up with an inferior product at the end... Continental Europe will never be able to match the USA in military terms, and frankly, why should it?

While it does come from the UKIP website, the size of the sample and the fact that it was done by a reputable polling organisation suggest that there is no bias in the data.
You didn't read my link, did you?
UKIP's got no credibility. It would be downright irresponsible of me to accept those results.
And to prove my point, here is the latest poll by YouGov.
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/RMW050101026_1.pdf Tells a different story.
http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/NKE040101002.pdf

Elgesh']Mori and the annual social attitudes survey OK? In this analysis of polls in Britain, 50.3% wanted the UK out of the EU in Nov. '99, for example.
Bit old, don't you think?
http://www.mori.com/polls/2005/citigroup-feb.shtml
http://www.mori.com/polls/2004/ifc.shtml

How about ICM?
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/Vote%20No%20-%20Jan/Vote%20No%20-%20EU%20Constitution%20-%20Feb%2005.asp
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/Talent%20TV%20-%20How%20Euro/Talent%20TV%20-%20How%20Euro.asp

And I found this thing:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/030609/story.html

The fact of the matter is that there is no majority of people who want to leave the EU at this point in time. It doesn't look like anyone is seriously contemplating it.
So have your referendum if you want. Make that decision once and for all and then go with it. I'd like to see Britain as a major player in shaping this project, but if you don't want to play, then don't. It'll work without you too.

What's the point in going through the rigmarole of changing everything though, just so we end up with an inferior product at the end... Continental Europe will never be able to match the USA in military terms, and frankly, why should it?

Firstly, I note we're only debating one point, but that's cool :) Secondly, I@m not going to be up much longer, getting late!

But anyway, I don't know why you're so certain it'll be an inferior product; nor do I see why the world's balance of power (military or otherwise) is suddenly set in stone; and finally, we may not always have the US willing or able to fight our wars for us. That'd put us in a hellish difficult position to be in, if the time comes. No US cavalry, the rest of europe with a reasonable military, us left on our own and isolated, weaker than the nations that surround us...

I'd rather avoid that possibility by joining a confederated EU, please!

And while I realise 'the dream' of the EU is usually referred to as a 'federal europe', I'll remind you - nothing's set in stone :D

snip.
I never said I wanted a referendum! Some things are too important to be left to a popular vote :) It's the difference between representatives and delegates, sometimes the needs of the country outweigh the desires of the people; very rarely, but I think this might be one of the exceptions.

I was just responding to your question :)

edit: looking at your links... none of them seem that relevant to your case...? Not once is there a question about leaving the EU. The consensus seems to be that the UK is profoundly euro-sceptic, while agreeing that a united europe would be a stronger europe. I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't see the points you're making reflected in the data; maybe I skimmed over the pieces tooquickly? What are you using to make your case?

How would leaving the EU isolate us dimplomatically?
You think the EU would be happy about it?
I can tell you by the way one group that wouldn't be happy...the British Business Community. Because they need the 400 something million customers in Europe. The few people in the UK are not enough for them.

And don't start with FTAs, because there will not be a lot of goodwill left between Britain and the EU if something like this happens.

How is it progressive to tie ourselve's up in a super-state facing economic, demographic and social decline?
Economic Decline? No. (By the way...wanna know how fast the UK economy grew in 2005? 1.9%. Germany: 1.8%, France: 1.5%, Ireland: 5%)
Demographic Decline? Well, not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union).
Social Decline? What in hell's name is "Social Decline"?

If you'd like to exaplin how it isn't valid I'd be most greatful...
Perhaps that you failed to back it up with any evidence at all? That it to me looks like little more than some sort of conspiracy theory, born out of the strange fascination of the Brits for the War?

Jean Marie Le Pen (a fascist) got 16% of the most recent French presidential election vote. Check your info...
I'd hardly call him a Fascist. More like the BNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Electoral_performance)...which incidentally lobbies for a UK withdrawal from the EU. Kinda like Le Pen does in France.

On the contrary, Britain was not attacked by Germany at all. Britain made a commitment to defend democracy in Europe by guaranteeing the independence of Poland, and when the Germans violated Polish independence Britain stepped into the fray.
There was war against Germany. Germany was getting to be the major player on the continent, which was against British interests. Had there be a commitment to anything else (like democracy), the Brits would not have let Poland simply fall, and then run from France.
It was all about British national interest. There were no good guys in WWII.

The rise of the far-right in countries as disparate as Belgium and Slovakia show that there is increasing anger in Europe of American cultural dominance.
Yeah, that'll be your conclusive proof then, I take it?

The fact that a Germany economics minister vetoed a French takeover of Atlas Elektronik shows that even Germany is worried about maintaing a strong national identity.
What does that have to do with National Identity? It's a defence contractor, and you don't sell those to anyone, especially if they don't make decent offers.

Size is not equal to power. This is something that shows the true stupidity of the EU enthusiasts: they think that bigger must equal better.
Big markets are more attractive to business than small ones. In multilateral settings, representing more people makes for a louder voice.

Switzerland is not part of the EU, yet they enjoy a fantastic standard of living and have plenty of international organisations based there.
Well, their fantastic standard of living has been troubled by slow growth recently...but anyways, do you think Iran would give a shit if Switzerland or Iceland asked them not to build nukes?
When the EU asked them, they agreed to negotiations, and with a bit of help from the Americans, there is a good chance of success.

Iceland is a barren rock in the middle of the Atlantic, but it somehow manages to have the third-highest living standard in Europe.
Since when does Iceland consist of barren rock? And besides, standard of living is not the same as international influence and importance.

Elgesh']edit: looking at your links... none of them seem that relevant to your case...? Not once is there a question about leaving the EU. The consensus seems to be that the UK is profoundly euro-sceptic, while agreeing that a united europe would be a stronger europe. I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't see the points you're making reflected in the data; maybe I skimmed over the pieces tooquickly? What are you using to make your case?
Oh, I was merely giving a rough picture of what the public thinks.

But doesn't the fact that no one but UKIP even asks that question anymore tell you something?

Oh, I was merely giving a rough picture of what the public thinks.

But doesn't the fact that no one but UKIP even asks that question anymore tell you something?

Mori regularly asked until the last couple of years at least, as does the social attitudes survey today, to my knowledge :confused: And your rough picture of Britain was very euro-sceptic, to my 2am-ish reading!

Anyway, the lack of widespread askage tells me that no one is paying the pollsters to ask. It doesn't even _hint_ at _why_ no one's asking!

I'm guessing you would say it's becuase everyone's (everyone=the people who matter) happy(ish, in the longterm) with the EU, to a degree. I'm guessing my eurosceptic fellow-briton above would say it's more likely the question is not being asked because the answers would embarass the political class, who all have a vested interest in keeping the country's minds off the EU; labour, the libdems are pro-EU, and the Tories nearly killed each other every time they tried to have a public debate. Forgetting about the EU is in our political parties interest right now.

I'm not sure what to think; but I don't think the UK as a whole or even a half wants to be a part of a federal state subsumed in the EU. There's no popular groundswell of public opinion that sees 'them' (europeans) quite like 'us', at all (see your own poll links). If we did join the EU totally (within the forseeable future, I mean; who knows, attitudes change, after all!) it would strictly be for business and practicality, not conviction or Eurocentrism, but a pragmatic response to world events.

Very sensible approach, to my mind - never trust an ideologist!

edit: it's been fun, but I@m away; need sleep! Pleasure talking to you, see you anon :)

There's obviously no point continuing this debate, as you are obviously a die-hard integrationist. However, I must confess that your rebuttal of my points has been significantly sub-standard.

I can tell you by the way one group that wouldn't be happy...the British Business Community. Because they need the 400 something million customers in Europe. The few people in the UK are not enough for them.

And don't start with FTAs, because there will not be a lot of goodwill left between Britain and the EU if something like this happens.

You claim that British business would collapse after EU withdrawal, but you know perfectly well that free trade agreements mean that that's bullshit. And since when has "goodwill" between nations counted in the business world?


Economic Decline? No. (By the way...wanna know how fast the UK economy grew in 2005? 1.9%. Germany: 1.8%, France: 1.5%, Ireland: 5%)
Demographic Decline? Well, not really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union).
Social Decline? What in hell's name is "Social Decline"?

You probably know that the UK has been growing faster than the EU since 1992, so don't try and blur the issue with one year's figures. (By the way, social decline mean burning cars in Paris, ETA bombs in Spain and neo-Nazis rallies in Germany).

"Well, not really"... I'm blown away by the strength of your argument!


Perhaps that you failed to back it up with any evidence at all? That it to me looks like little more than some sort of conspiracy theory, born out of the strange fascination of the Brits for the War?

If you can suggest a truly logical alternative explanation, give it me.


I'd hardly call him a Fascist. More like the BNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party#Electoral_performance)...which incidentally lobbies for a UK withdrawal from the EU. Kinda like Le Pen does in France.

If a man who celebrated the birthday of Rudolf Hess isn't a fascist, then I'll be damned...

There was war against Germany. Germany was getting to be the major player on the continent, which was against British interests. Had there be a commitment to anything else (like democracy), the Brits would not have let Poland simply fall, and then run from France.
It was all about British national interest. There were no good guys in WWII.

Considering that almost all of Britian's interests lied outside Europe at the time (e.g. India, Canada, Australia, the Far East), there was no need to defend Europe (just as there was no need to participate in WW1). It was well known at the time that Hitler didn't want war with Britain. And how may I ask was Britain supposed to prevent Poland from falling when Germany was in the way?

Yeah, that'll be your conclusive proof then, I take it?

You know just as well as i do that many European countries are insecure about maintaining their national identities. Institutions like the Academie Francaise or the French subsidising of their film industry don't appear when a nation is feeling self-confident.

What does that have to do with National Identity? It's a defence contractor, and you don't sell those to anyone, especially if they don't make decent offers.

Whyever not? France is Germany's greatest ally, and cooperation could bring significant rewards. Thatles incidentally offered a much better price, but Angie made BAE exceptm the worse offer, just because the two letters at the end of the company's name were A.G.

Big markets are more attractive to business than small ones. In multilateral settings, representing more people makes for a louder voice.

In a world of FTAs, there is only the global market. We're already on our way, and EU tariffs are slowing down progress.

Well, their fantastic standard of living has been troubled by slow growth recently...but anyways, do you think Iran would give a shit if Switzerland or Iceland asked them not to build nukes?
When the EU asked them, they agreed to negotiations, and with a bit of help from the Americans, there is a good chance of success.

Hardly troubled. They still have a better standard of living than the Eurozone, and when you're that wealthy growth is bound to slow down. As as for your Iran point, jeez... Has the EU stopped Iran, despite months of diplomacy? No! Israel could stop their programme with a single bombing raid, but Europe would never consider that.

Since when does Iceland consist of barren rock? And besides, standard of living is not the same as international influence and importance.

Ok I exaggerated, barren rock with a generous covering of moss.

Which is more important to the average person, how "important" the country is or how high is their own standard of living? I know which I'd prefer.

Ps apologies for spelling, it's nearly 3am...

Elgesh']Mori regularly asked until the last couple of years at least, as does the social attitudes survey today, to my knowledge :confused:
Can you find the current one?
They all want me to pay, or register.

Elgesh']And your rough picture of Britain was very euro-sceptic, to my 2am-ish reading!
Hey, I don't deny it. But it's apparently not so to the point of actually leaving the EU.
And even if it is...get it over with. In or out, I say, but make up your mind, Britain!

Elgesh']edit: it's been fun, but I@m away; need sleep! Pleasure talking to you, see you anon :)
Sleep tight.

It is in the interests of no politician to re-open Europe, because the consequences of the public expressing its actual opinion are too great to even think about for our piss-poor politicians. It's the same with capital punishment: MPs are afraid of letting the people have their say in case they pick the wrong option.

(By the way, social decline mean burning cars in Paris, ETA bombs in Spain and neo-Nazis rallies in Germany).


Yep, Britian is immune to social decline, isn't it?

http://info.detnews.com/dn/pix/2005/09/11/asec/as11-ireland-0905n_09-11-2005_O38F0M5.jpg

you wouldnt need to subsidise the scots if you didnt keep taking OUR oil profits and spending them outside of Scotland

YOUR oil profits? I'm sorry? You have had a share of everything England, Wales and Ireland have gained revenues from over the last three centuries. That is the point of the Union - to share the mutal resources of the British Isles for the mutal benefit of all the members. Just because the oil happened to be off the coast of Scotland does not make it 'Scottish' oil - it was British oil, just as English wool export revenues are British wool export revenues.

You claim that British business would collapse after EU withdrawal, but you know perfectly well that free trade agreements mean that that's bullshit. And since when has "goodwill" between nations counted in the business world?
It does. For the UK to actually leave the EU, there would have to be a huge spout over it. It's not a thing that would be handled with an open mind, by either side, and politicians are perfectly capable of making decisions based on grudges.
Ultimately, the EU can go without the UK's economy, but not vice versa, which is the point. The UK would have to come and beg, which is hardly what I would call national sovereignty.

You probably know that the UK has been growing faster than the EU since 1992, so don't try and blur the issue with one year's figures.
But at the moment it actually looks like the German economy is picking up a bit of steam, which will automatically pull up the figures for the EU as a whole. We'll see.

(By the way, social decline mean burning cars in Paris, ETA bombs in Spain and neo-Nazis rallies in Germany).
ETA Bombs are no more a sign of social decline than IRA ones. As for Neonazi rallies...Britain's got them too. As does the US, and probably every other nation on earth at some point (except maybe Israel).
The Riots are a good point, but as I said before, France is hardly representative of the EU as a whole, and has its very own problems to handle.

"Well, not really"... I'm blown away by the strength of your argument!
You didn't read the link, did you.

If you can suggest a truly logical alternative explanation, give it me.
There is one treaty which can tell you everything you need to know about why the EU exists.
It is the Treaty of Paris, which created the ECSC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community).

If a man who celebrated the birthday of Rudolf Hess isn't a fascist, then I'll be damned...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Considering that almost all of Britian's interests lied outside Europe at the time (e.g. India, Canada, Australia, the Far East), there was no need to defend Europe (just as there was no need to participate in WW1).
Obviously the Parliament thought differently and felt that a powerful Germany ruling Central Europe was not in British interest.

And how may I ask was Britain supposed to prevent Poland from falling when Germany was in the way?
By sending troops? Or planes? Or ships? Or trying to establish a second front? Or doing anything at all, other than saying "Well, we'll stay here, and if we eventually manage to win, you'll get your country back."

You know just as well as i do that many European countries are insecure about maintaining their national identities. Institutions like the Academie Francaise or the French subsidising of their film industry don't appear when a nation is feeling self-confident.
You're still only talking about one European country, and one that is not representative.
There may be some people worried, but no differently from the BNP worried in Britain. It's right-wingers who hang on to something that is no longer with the times. There are no major movements AFAIK outside France that are concerned with protecting some sort of fictional national identity.
But just on the side...I agree with the subsidies for French films, because they sometimes are a lot better than the US productions, which make their money in the States and are then dumped on foreign markets in package deals.

Whyever not? France is Germany's greatest ally, and cooperation could bring significant rewards. Thatles incidentally offered a much better price, but Angie made BAE exceptm the worse offer, just because the two letters at the end of the company's name were A.G.
Hey, I wouldn't have minded.
And L3 made an even better offer, and nothing was said there, even though that firm has pretty firm US-Connections. I don't understand, and the German people probably don't understand either.
Perhaps there was something about Thales in particular which was the problem.
Oh, and kinda significant: That was Schröder, not Merkel.

In a world of FTAs, there is only the global market. We're already on our way, and EU tariffs are slowing down progress.
Of course...but ultimately, FTAs just make governments more powerless. Once there is real global free trade, all government has to be centralised for the entire world if it is to provide a meaningful framework for trade to occur in.
Why does the EU need EU-wide economic regulation? Because in a FTA, firms would simply move to the place most favourable to them. Same if there was global free trade.
Do you see the inherent contradiction between calling for global free trade, and be worried about national sovereignty at the same time?

Hardly troubled. They still have a better standard of living than the Eurozone, and when you're that wealthy growth is bound to slow down.
Oooh, is that an excuse now for why Britain grows faster than Germany at the moment?

As as for your Iran point, jeez... Has the EU stopped Iran, despite months of diplomacy? No! Israel could stop their programme with a single bombing raid, but Europe would never consider that.
Because it would result in war. And besides, there is little to no chance of actually getting everything destroyed.
As for "stopped"...what exactly would "stopping" constitute? Negotiations take time, and we are a lot further than we were a year ago.

Which is more important to the average person, how "important" the country is or how high is their own standard of living? I know which I'd prefer.
Which makes me wonder why you're going along the "UK must be independent and important"-line.

Hey been following this for a while... I read an interesting article a bit ago that i wanted to share.
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html
As a US citizen i agree with a lot of this. I get sick of the US going and solving all these problems that Europe just sits around and talks about. While the ideals of the EU are comendable, you cant expect everyone to conform if you arent going to do anything but talk to them. Talking only works if you have the force to back it up.

As a US citizen i agree with a lot of this. I get sick of the US going and solving all these problems that Europe just sits around and talks about. While the ideals of the EU are comendable, you cant expect everyone to conform if you arent going to do anything but talk to them. Talking only works if you have the force to back it up.

You don't expect us to invade new Europe, do you? Talking works perfectly well. Look at the modernization of Turkey. It was talking that did that, nothing more.

Yes, stagnant economies, inflation, high unemployment with stagnant job growth, a massive demographic problem and high and complicated taxes really threaten the US. The US is booming while Europe is stagnant. Although there are hopes of recovery, lack of action will nip it in the bud.

If the EU reforms itself, it will be a real competitor Otherwise, it's still going to be behind the US in economic growth and prospects. They've got huge problems that aren't going to solve themselves.

Starting with their lack of an ability to solve their problems(i.e. Democracy)

I, being an Austrian Catholic school boy, should probably become dictator of a powerful European Country and conquer Europe so I can solve their problems.

But seriously, socialist politics are too thoroughly imbeded in the European populace for Europe to solve its problems democratically. America isn't as bad off and that's why we're still growing economically, but who knows which way the political winds will shift? In a democracy the people in power are their voters' bitches, and their voters more often than not don't know jack shit about even the general direction to move a country, let alone how to run it well. So long as Europe remains marxist and America remains less marxist, Europe doesn't stand a chance at beating us.

You don't expect us to invade new Europe, do you? Talking works perfectly well. Look at the modernization of Turkey. It was talking that did that, nothing more.

Im not talking about modernizing countries. Im talking about getting countries to stop building nukes and to stop bombing Israel. Palestine is not going to listen to Europe because they know that Europe wouldn't ever do anything and probably coudn't anyway with their military.

Palestine is not going to listen to Europe because they know that Europe wouldn't ever do anything and probably coudn't anyway with their military.
Which is precisely why it is so important for the EU and the US to work together.
Europe is not a military power, nor should it aim to be.

"Appeasement" is not the same as "Cowardice", and hardly a universally bad idea, regardless of what is taught about it in American schools.

Fact is that killing people is a bad idea. Killing people to stop killing people is not much better.
That is where a bit of commitment to peaceful solutions is needed. But I'd agree that at some point the talking must end. And for that reason, we already have the best tool in the world: NATO.

Both sides have to give a little to get a little here: As with Iran, the idea would be that the EU comes in and starts negotiations and the US helps or at least doesn't obstruct. And if those fail, NATO, of course primarily the US, takes things to the next level, and the EU helps or at least doesn't obstruct.

If that could be done, it would be the ultimate force in the world, one which could really get things done.

I, being an Austrian Catholic school boy, should probably become dictator of a powerful European Country and conquer Europe so I can solve their problems.
That'll make for an interesting picture, so much is clear..."Austrian becomes Chancellor of Germany - vows to unify Europe to create pure and powerful empire".

But seriously, socialist politics are too thoroughly imbeded in the European populace for Europe to solve its problems democratically.
What? Sweden manages just nicely.
The German economy is actually working pretty well, was it not for the low consumer confidence. Exports however go great.
Poland is in a horrible shape with unemployment and poverty, yet they clearly have been going the liberal way.
France is the only place where I could really say: This is what too much Socialism does. In France the government owns huge companies and regulates labour relations too heavily.

So long as Europe remains marxist and America remains less marxist, Europe doesn't stand a chance at beating us.
a) Marxist?
b) Who wants to beat anyone? I thought wealth was infinite.

Im not talking about modernizing countries. Im talking about getting countries to stop building nukes and to stop bombing Israel. Palestine is not going to listen to Europe because they know that Europe wouldn't ever do anything and probably coudn't anyway with their military.
And why should Europe support Israel? the majority of Europeans i suspect see Israel as the problem, its only Americans that give there unconditional support to the worst rogue state in the history of the middle east.

I think we should stay in, but Britain and France should both make concessions, rebate and stupid farm subsidies-wise respectively.

Should the UK remain within the EU?

The UK should be kicked out. Especially out of the Economic Union.
Since they don't contribute anything anyway. Their as usefull as seatbelts on rollerblades.

Ah, the EU:

1) We should stay in. Free Trade is important, as is the EU's political influence.

2) We ought to strongly ally with the Eastern European nations who largely support our economic views and use them as a voting bloc to get at the French.

3) We ought to deadlock the EU - veto anything and everything - until there is CAP reform. Thatcher did it enough times, I dont know why Blair is so squeemish about trashing EU summits to get his own way.

4) We should get rid the rebate, but only when there is no need for it.

5) We should seek to mold it in our own image. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

2) We ought to strongly ally with the Eastern European nations who largely support our economic views and use them as a voting bloc to get at the French.
Agreed...but it should be about the EU, rather than about going against the French.

3) We ought to deadlock the EU - veto anything and everything - until there is CAP reform. Thatcher did it enough times, I dont know why Blair is so squeemish about trashing EU summits to get his own way.
Because it's not something you can achieve by being a moaning bitch. Thatcher had personality, and she had the political support, and the situation in Europe to do it.
Blair doesn't.

4) We should get rid the rebate, but only when there is no need for it.
Like...now?

5) We should seek to mold it in our own image. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
With a queen and a Nazi prince and everything?

2) We ought to strongly ally with the Eastern European nations who largely support our economic views and use them as a voting bloc to get at the French.


You should have thought of that before you wanted to cut EU funding at their expense.

As a US citizen i agree with a lot of this. I get sick of the US going and solving all these problems that Europe just sits around and talks about.
Yeah right! Like the Palestinian problem is solved, or Iraq is solved! The US way of "solving" problems has a habit of creating worse problems, e.g. getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan by supporting Islamic radicals (giving rise to the Taleban and Al-Quaeda), supporting Saddam Hussein up until the end of the 80s etc etc.

The US government is not very interested in solving other people's problems - it's interested in protecting US interests (mainly business interests), with scant regard to international law, and regardless of the problems it creates for others. If a dictatorship serves American interests, they'll prop up a dictatorship. If World opinion and the UN Security Council is opposed to what they do, they'll ignore them; out of some perverse belief that the interests of 5% of the World's population have the right to override the interests of the other 95%. This is not the way forward, and it's very dangerous.

With a queen and a Nazi prince and everything?
A Nazi prince??? Who?

A Nazi prince??? Who?
That one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170083.stm). :p

I couldn't care less, to be honest.
The way I see it, the UK is contributing little else than constant arguments and vetos. It's bad enough with France doing that, throw the UK into the discussion and you can't help feeling that you are witnessing a fight among 3 year olds. Entertaining, but not very productive.

Personally, I like the EU. I profited greatly from it, both during my time at university where student exchanges were made possible with the help of the EU, and later on when moving to another country to find a job. A little more democracy would be desireable, that's true, but I doubt that a constituational monarchy has very much to offer in that department....

Praetonia is a rarety, a Brit that understands that Great Britain can actually change things in the EU.

But regretfully, if Britain continues to be a slave of the US, instead of a Leader in Europe, than it would be best for all if they just left.

I couldn't care less, to be honest.
The way I see it, the UK is contributing little else than constant arguments and vetos. It's bad enough with France doing that, throw the UK into the discussion and you can't help feeling that you are witnessing a fight among 3 year olds. Entertaining, but not very productive.

Personally, I like the EU. I profited greatly from it, both during my time at university where student exchanges were made possible with the help of the EU, and later on when moving to another country to find a job. A little more democracy would be desireable, that's true, but I doubt that a constituational monarchy has very much to offer in that department....
Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Finland and Holland are also all constitutional monarchies. :p

I agree with you though, and I think the EU should definitely remain. As for the UK, perhaps it should exit the EU if it hates it so much and form its own economic union.

Praetonia is a rarety, a Brit that understands that Great Britain can actually change things in the EU.

But regretfully, if Britain continues to be a slave of the US, instead of a Leader in Europe, than it would be best for all if they just left.
Indeed. I find it even worse that a former colonist would subject itself to the influence of one of its...colonies.

Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Finland and Holland are also all constitutional monarchies. :p

I agree with you though, and I think the EU should definitely remain. As for the UK, perhaps it should exit the EU if it hates it so much and form its own economic union.

I know, but none of them seem to be so constantly working to block every action of the EU, only to then complain it's not democratic enough :p

I know, but none of them seem to be so constantly working to block every action of the EU, only to then complain it's not democratic enough :p
True, very true. Although the role of the monarchy in the UK is purely decorative.

As for the UK, perhaps it should exit the EU if it hates it so much and form its own economic union.
The point is that they tried and it failed. It never became a viable alternative, and in the end they gave up on it themselves.

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

A little more democracy would be desireable, that's true, but I doubt that a constituational monarchy has very much to offer in that department....

Underlined = understatement of the year nomination :p

Plus, you know full well the UK's a 'constitutional monarchy' in name only :D

Elgesh']Underlined = understatement of the year nomination :p
Already though the Parliament is the be-all and end-all of the process. It's true that it can't propose laws itself, but it does need to approve them, and it can dismiss the commission as well.

The problem is just that everybody is so convinced that it's not democratic that they don't go vote for that parliament, meaning that essentially it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The point is that they tried and it failed. It never became a viable alternative, and in the end they gave up on it themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association
I don't believe in simply giving up. That is defeatist. They could form a new commonwealth with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and possibly South Africa. That would be a viable alternative.

Already though the Parliament is the be-all and end-all of the process. It's true that it can't propose laws itself, but it does need to approve them, and it can dismiss the commission as well.

The problem is just that everybody is so convinced that it's not democratic that they don't go vote for that parliament, meaning that essentially it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Indeed. A democracy with passive voters might as well just as be a dictatorship.

Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Finland and Holland are also all constitutional monarchies. :p

I agree with you though, and I think the EU should definitely remain. As for the UK, perhaps it should exit the EU if it hates it so much and form its own economic union.
We had one before we came into the EU and it worked pretty well. And we could even fish for our own fish back then!

I don't believe in simply giving up. That is defeatist. They could form a new commonwealth with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and possibly South Africa. That would be a viable alternative.

Which would effectively shift the balance from EU - USA - Asia to EU - USA - Asia - Commonwealth. That's good, it would make for more competition and considering the geography of the Commonwealth, it would probably provide some additional economic stability.

Which would effectively shift the balance from EU - USA - Asia to EU - USA - Asia - Commonwealth. That's good, it would make for more competition and considering the geography of the Commonwealth, it would probably provide some additional economic stability.
Precisely. It will also free the EU of a country that really detests ceding over more power to it and will give Britain much freedom.

Agreed...but it should be about the EU, rather than about going against the French.
As a general rule, going against the French is always best for everyone.

Because it's not something you can achieve by being a moaning bitch. Thatcher had personality, and she had the political support, and the situation in Europe to do it.
Blair doesn't.
The French do it all the time. It's how EU politics work. Blair's version of politics is too flowery for reality. You are NEVER going to convince the French (or anyone really) with gentle reasoning that they should stop a system whereby Europe pays them money and demands little if anything in return.

Like...now?
No, there's a need for it now.

With a queen
Indeed. That would be a long-term goal.

You should have thought of that before you wanted to cut EU funding at their expense.
Yeah well Blair is an idiot and I didnt vote for him.

But Europa Maxima - The Commonwealth should become extremely EU-ly powerful. We deserve it.

Precisely. It will also free the EU of a country that really detests ceding over more power to it and will give Britain much freedom.
So in essence go back to the situation before we joined the EU?
When we had strong trade partners all round the world. And we had some of the most productive fisheries and one of the biggest fishing industries.
Gets my vote.

Also the Cold War is over, so we can retake all that water the Icelandish stole from us. Why didnt we just send in a few battleships in the 1900s is what I want to know!

So in essence go back to the situation before we joined the EU?
When we had strong trade partners all round the world. And we had some of the most productive fisheries and one of the biggest fishing industries.
Gets my vote.
I don't see this happening, not in the near future anyway. Although if anything it should be done immediately, before the UK becomes too entangled into the EU.

As for the EU paying countries, why not assign each country a budget and let it spend it as it likes? This is what Italy suggested. So if France wants to waste it on its agriculture, it can. No more CAP. Just an amount of cash.

We are currently having presidential elections in our 'constitutional monarchy'. Maybe you should update your data...

We are currently having presidential elections in our 'constitutional monarchy'. Maybe you should update your data...
Oh, I apologise. I wonder why I thought Finland was a constitutional monarchy :confused:

I don't believe in simply giving up. That is defeatist. They could form a new commonwealth with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and possibly South Africa. That would be a viable alternative.

Figures excluding the UK :
GDP (in British billions) : EU $10.7; "New Commonwealth" $1.9
Population (=market) : EU 400m; "New Commonwealth" 57 million

It doesn't look like much of an alternative to me, even if the other Commonwealth countries were interested.

Oh, I apologise. I wonder why I thought Finland was a constitutional monarchy :confused:
That's quite all right. The less people know about us, the better.

Figures excluding the UK :
GDP (in British billions) : EU $10.7; "New Commonwealth" $1.9
Population (=market) : EU 400m; "New Commonwealth" 57 million

It doesn't look like much of an alternative to me, even if the other Commonwealth countries were interested.
If the UK wants to keep its sovereignty, it may well be the best.

Oh, I apologise. I wonder why I thought Finland was a constitutional monarchy :confused:
It's the only Scandinavian country which isn't.

The EU monarchies are Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belguim, Luxemburg, Spain and the UK.

It's the only Scandinavian country which isn't.

The EU monarchies are Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belguim, Luxemburg, Spain and the UK.
Its not even Scandinavian I believe :p

That's quite all right. The less people know about us, the better.
Why would that be? :p

Its not even Scandinavian I believe :p
If you want to be strict, only Norway and Sweden are on the scandinavian peninsula.

If you want to be strict, only Norway and Sweden are on the scandinavian peninsula.
Yes. Although people distinguish it due to its distinct language as well. Finnish is very different to any of the scandinavian tongues.

Why would that be? :p
We don't want people nosing in on our wmd program and death camps.

If the UK wants to keep its sovereignty, it may well be the best.
Why would we necessarily want to keep our sovereignty (assuming any country is truly sovereign in this US-dominated global age)? What would the ordinary man in the street gain from being part of a less properous far-flung club of nations?

Why would we necessarily want to keep our sovereignty (assuming any country is truly sovereign in this US-dominated global age)? What would the ordinary man in the street gain from being part of a less properous far-flung club of nations?
Well this seems to be the major bone of contention for the UK. As far as I am concerned, I am all for a greater Europe.

We don't want people nosing in on our wmd program and death camps.
Wouldn't it be of benefit to hire foreign experts on the matter though? Say, Germans, or Japanese even? :p

Why would we necessarily want to keep our sovereignty (assuming any country is truly sovereign in this US-dominated global age)? What would the ordinary man in the street gain from being part of a less properous far-flung club of nations?

Sovreignty and control of your own destiny's either something that matters to you or it doesn't :) Even in the case of the strawman of 'freedom or prosperity', people will often choose differently

Wouldn't it be of benefit to hire foreign experts on the matter though? Say, Germans, or Japanese even? :p
If you want the best you better hire Americans.

In or out, as they prefer (I'd like them to stay but...) but stop being a problem to develop a real Federal EU. Most of us are wanting for it, 'cause our wonderful national soveranity has ruined too often our contries.

If you want the best you better hire Americans.
Hmmm maybe...I am not too sure how refined their techniques are though.

In or out, as they prefer (I'd like them to stay but...) but stop being a problem to develop a real Federal EU. Most of us are wanting for it, 'cause our wonderful national soveranity has ruined too often our contries.
Exactly. If they dislike the idea of a federal EU so much then let them leave.

Exactly. If they dislike the idea of a federal EU so much then let them leave.
The point of the EU was never to be a federal superstate and, let's face it, people are only proposing it because the Americans did it and the European states are weak on their own. Frankly, I have practically nothing in common with the average Frenchman, German or Polishman. I dont see why they should have a say in governing my country and I dont see why I should have a say in governing theirs.

The point of the EU was never to be a federal superstate and, let's face it, people are only proposing it because the Americans did it and the European states are weak on their own. Frankly, I have practically nothing in common with the average Frenchman, German or Polishman. I dont see why they should have a say in governing my country and I dont see why I should have a say in governing theirs.
The point of the EU is different to what it was once, and honestly, I prefer a powerful EU to weak individual states. If Britain does not want to stay in an EU which wants to converge, it can always leave. I am all for an EU superstate as a counterbalance to the USA and the rising star of China. Pathetic little nation-states are a thing of the past.

The point of the EU is different to what it was once, and honestly, I prefer a powerful EU to weak individual states. If Britain does not want to stay in an EU which wants to converge, it can always leave. I am all for an EU superstate as a counterbalance to the USA and the rising star of China. Pathetic little nation-states are a thing of the past.
I remember (not personally) a referendum to join the EEC but can't place the one that put us on the track for a federal state.
Would we not be better off joining a union of countries that share a fairly common culture. Say the US, Canada, NZ, Australia and if they want to come in and because they will be an economic power India.
But the US would never become part of anything that smacked of mutual aid.

Yes

I remember (not personally) a referendum to join the EEC but can't place the one that put us on the track for a federal state.
Would we not be better off joining a union of countries that share a fairly common culture. Say the US, Canada, NZ, Australia and if they want to come in and because they will be an economic power India.
But the US would never become part of anything that smacked of mutual aid.
This is how I view it as well. I am not sure if the UK would want to enter an economic union with India, mainly because of its potential economic power. Unless the union remained purely economic and proceeded no further.

South Africa could also be a potential candidate by the way.

The EU would be better of without the UK. The British only want the benefits but non of the duties that come with those.

The simple cold reality is this. Britain's wealth today is derived from the empire, which is gone. Therefore that wealth will slowly be used up. Britain no longer has the manpower (especially unskilled), intelectual capital, industries, raw resources or global influence to remain a super power or even a minor power on its own. As such she must choose between accepting a slow painfull slip into obscurity (independance) or an Union with some other group. If the second choice is the only rational one then, we are presented with a set of possible alliances, the EU, Commonwealth, the US or A N Other. The EU is deeply Anglophobic, beurocratic and far more Left than any significant party in Britain but is on our doorstep, potentially ecconomically more powerful than either the US or China and shares our democratic and humanitarian perspectives to a greater degree than the other choices; The commonwealth is, sadly, not a viable entity in its own right because, in part, of the racial, religious and cultural conflicts between members (for example india and pakistan, Zimbabwe and Britain, Sudan and Kenya) that exist and, in part, because in many parts of the commonwealth would perceive such a move as an attempt to remake the Empire and nulify the last Century of struggle against foreign domination, All that before you take into account the external preasures of the US, China and the logistical problems of syncranising ecconomys, militaries and policies accross the world. Then there is the fact that most Commonwealth members are not democratic. The US is a viable option, because culturally and ecconomically we are sufficiently close to each other to make absorbsion simple, but we in Britain would be an isolated and vassel state rather than maintain the quasi self determination that we have now, because we are definately the minor partner. What A N Other could constitute is anyone's guess but I find it hard to pinpoint a viable grouping that hasn't already been tried.

The EU is deeply Anglophobic.
And where did you get that from?

*snip*
True. BTW, a commonwealth alliance would be between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and maybe South Africa. No one suggested it should include the entire Commonwealth, as many countries of it would be unwilling to enter such an entity.

The EU would of course be an excellent choice, seeing as it will be economically dominant eventually, but its Britain's prerogative in the end.

I remember (not personally) a referendum to join the EEC but can't place the one that put us on the track for a federal state.
It was one and the same, despite the efforts of politicians at the time to skate over the fact. References to the treaties being part of a determination to construct "an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe" were contained in both the Treaty of Rome and the 1972 Accession Treaty.

The federalism debate in the UK is a farce : the EU is, and always has been, federal in the areas over which it has competence. The F-word is used as little more than an anti-EU scare tactic.

Would we not be better off joining a union of countries that share a fairly common culture. Say the US, Canada, NZ, Australia and if they want to come in and because they will be an economic power India.
But the US would never become part of anything that smacked of mutual aid.
We do belong to a union which shares a fairly common culture. Britain has always been European in culture. The only big divider is language, but that is likely to diminish over time as English becomes the lingua franca within the EU (and the world), despite French resistence!

Despite the British legacy, India is a very different culture compared to those of Europe. I've been a frrequent traveller both in Europe and the USA, and apart from the language difficulties in some countries, I feel as at home (in some ways more at home) in continental Europe as in the USA.

I would imagine India to be extremely different culturarly.

Yes
*nods*

The UK seems to want Europe on its terms and nobody elses. The EU would be better off without the UK, let her majesties government go begging bowl in hand to Washington. Europes future is to be a unified State that will have the collective strength to compete with the States ands China, Europe does not need the UK for that.

True. BTW, a commonwealth alliance would be between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and maybe South Africa. No one suggested it should include the entire Commonwealth, as many countries of it would be unwilling to enter such an entity.

The EU would of course be an excellent choice, seeing as it will be economically dominant eventually, but its Britain's prerogative in the end.

It would not be workable, mainly because there is little justification for them to join with us (Britain). Also, speeking as a Zimbabwean-Britain, South Africa should never be allowed to join if such a union were created, she is a deeply unstable and ultimately self distructive entity. Liberal NZ can bearly stand the present regional union with conservative Ausies can you emagine how they would feel if you added the US to that mix. Canada has enough problems keeping Quebec let alone Uniting with other English speaking nations - smells like revolution brewing to me..... Anyway, how would such a union be administerd and who gets that responsibility? few of them trust each other and they justifiably trust the British less. How would we deal with the logistical nightmares of such a far flung union and how would we answer calls of racism and rebuilding the Empire (which would provoke outcry from those not asked in). Also, such a union couldn't reathc a critical mass (economically) because of their relitively small populations.

The EU was a whole mess of a mistake to begin with in the first place. Plenty of ideas that looked good on paper, but never properly implemented.

The UK seems to want Europe on its terms and nobody elses.
To a greater or lesser extent, that's true of all member states, but things usually end up with a compromise in the end. Try abolishing the CAP and watch France's reaction!

The EU would be better off without the UK, let her majesties government go begging bowl in hand to Washington. Europes future is to be a unified State that will have the collective strength to compete with the States ands China, Europe does not need the UK for that.
If I remember rightly, it was the French and Dutch who scuppered the next stage in European integration by rejecting the proposed EU Constitution :)

Loss of the UK - the World's fourth largest economy - would have a significant impact on the EU. But I do agree that it would help if the UK would take a more European attitude to things instead of cow-towing to the US quite so much.

The EU was a whole mess of a mistake to begin with in the first place. Plenty of ideas that looked good on paper, but never properly implemented.
Given that it's a collection of historically fiercely independent and often rival nations with different histories, it's inevitable that the road to European Union wasn't going to be smooth. In the circumstances, it's done amazingly well.

The EU is not a democratic institution, it is a total and utter mess of bureaucracy, it is full to the brim of corruption, and it is bogged down by international bickering. And for something which started out as an economic alliance it sure knows how to stiffle economies. Knock it down, rebuild it from the ground up to solve these problems and maybe I will be interested.

The point of the EU is different to what it was once, and honestly, I prefer a powerful EU to weak individual states. If Britain does not want to stay in an EU which wants to converge, it can always leave. I am all for an EU superstate as a counterbalance to the USA and the rising star of China. Pathetic little nation-states are a thing of the past.
The USA and China are both "pathetic little nation-states" and they are powerful because they care about their countries and arent wrapped up in irrelevent internal matters. Europe decided that it no longer wanted to be of any importance when the European Powers gave up their empires, and no EU superstate is going to change that. As an aisde, the EU clearly is not 'converging' - the French and Dutch didnt even vote for the constitution. There is no need to be a single power to have group strength, only internal trade, open borders and collective decision making about collective affairs.

The US is a viable option, because culturally and ecconomically we are sufficiently close to each other to make absorbsion simple, but we in Britain would be an isolated and vassel state rather than maintain the quasi self determination that we have now, because we are definately the minor partner. What A N Other could constitute is anyone's guess but I find it hard to pinpoint a viable grouping that hasn't already been tried.

Vassel state ! hold on a second if the UK became a state or states for that matter you would have huge power rember elections in the US are very very close . and since the UK has 65 million people the UK would be able to pick are next president and would be able to shift control of the House ..maybe even the senat . the UK would have huge power over the US and a huge say something u will never have in the EU . plus if the UK and US did join ! canada would be next probbly followed by Australia and New Zealand . probbly jamica and the bahamas soon after maybe south africa .

the fact is london is rome and new york in Constantinople the english empire isnt dead .

The US is a viable option, because culturally and ecconomically we are sufficiently close to each other to make absorbsion simple, but we in Britain would be an isolated and vassel state rather than maintain the quasi self determination that we have now, because we are definately the minor partner. What A N Other could constitute is anyone's guess but I find it hard to pinpoint a viable grouping that hasn't already been tried.

Vassel state ! hold on a second if the UK became a state or states for that matter you would have huge power rember elections in the US are very very close . and since the UK has 65 million people the UK would be able to pick are next president and would be able to shift control of the House ..maybe even the senat . the UK would have huge power over the US and a huge say something u will never have in the EU . plus if the UK and US did join ! canada would be next probbly followed by Australia and New Zealand . probbly jamica and the bahamas soon after maybe south africa .

the fact is london is rome and new york in Constantinople the english empire isnt dead .

The UK seems to want Europe on its terms and nobody elses. The EU would be better off without the UK, let her majesties government go begging bowl in hand to Washington. Europes future is to be a unified State that will have the collective strength to compete with the States ands China, Europe does not need the UK for that.

Why shouldn't Britain do what's in its best interests. Other EU members (FRANCE) do. For someone who lives in "London mainly" your tone is a little snotty. Britain, unlike France of Germany, enjoys a very friendly relationship with the US. Is there something wrong with that?
Also, The EU is a pathetic joke, of which I want no part... but sadly the poor old EU does need Britain. It's economy is more successful than either Germany's or France's.. oh and now pay even more towards French farmers. Who would prop these lazy, inefficient nationalists up if we weren't around?

Vassel state ! hold on a second if the UK became a state or states for that matter you would have huge power rember elections in the US are very very close . and since the UK has 65 million people the UK would be able to pick are next president and would be able to shift control of the House ..maybe even the senat .
You forget that no one in Britain likes either of the parties on offer in the US elections and so all we'd be able to choose is who we dislike least. It's silly. At least if we were part of an EU superstate we would be one of the major partners, not some silly little outpost tacked onto the side and the EU is actually richer than the US. Apart from the language, it's probably culturally closer too.

The EU hasn't failed. With his "The rich help the poor" nations like Ireland and Portugal are now much more wealthier than they would have been on there own, in the meantime the rich countries don't seem to miss the money.
If you don't like to help the needy, then by all means leave the union.

Frankly, I have practically nothing in common with the average Frenchman, German or Polishman. I dont see why they should have a say in governing my country and I dont see why I should have a say in governing theirs.

I visited Britian recently. When I went drinking, it was with an Irish ex-pat, a welsh drug-dealer, a black Muslim and a crazy catholic republican. What do you have in common with them?

oh and now pay even more towards French farmers. Who would prop these lazy, inefficient nationalists up if we weren't around?

CAP is to go by 2013. It's no longer an issue.

Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Finland and Holland are also all constitutional monarchies. :p

Well, in 1918, after the civil war in Finland there was some uncertainty about what government system should be used and a German guy Friedrich Karl Ludwig Konstantin von Hessen-Kassel was chosen as the king of Finland. However he never even managed to see Finland and officially accept the title before he gave up the crown and the Finnish republic was formed. So no, Finland is not a monarchy and is ruled by the parliament and a president, both elected by the people.

I visited Britian recently. When I went drinking, it was with an Irish ex-pat, a welsh drug-dealer, a black Muslim and a crazy catholic republican. What do you have in common with them?
Without any detailed information on these peoples' characters I cant say what I do / dont have in common with them. All you've done is say bad / unusual things about them in the hope that I will accept that that is all there is to them. *shrug*

Why shouldn't Britain do what's in its best interests. Other EU members (FRANCE) do.
Big disclaimer here....it's all Chirac's fault. He was the nationalist. He watched the economy go down the drain, did nothing and instead entertained ideas of world power with stunts like in Cote d'Ivoire.
Schröder was of the same sort of character, and he's gone and disgraced. Chirac's term will be over soon, and the new guy, regardless of what he might want to do, will have no personal relationships, his word will mean nothing to other negotiators, and Merkel has stepped away from the Paris-Berlin Axis.

Britain has the chance in these coming years to achieve anything it wants. Merkel can be convinced, which could give rise to a provisional London-Berlin Axis. The Eastern European States are still more likely to accept Liberal Suggestions than Socialist ones, despite the debacle Blair pulled.

For someone who lives in "London mainly" your tone is a little snotty. Britain, unlike France of Germany, enjoys a very friendly relationship with the US. Is there something wrong with that?
Of course not...but it's curious that one would want to keep national sovereignty, but then condemn oneself to be an add-on to Bush and Post-Bush.

Also, The EU is a pathetic joke, of which I want no part... but sadly the poor old EU does need Britain. It's economy is more successful than either Germany's or France's.
Actually, that's not quite right. Growth Rates are not the same as "powerful", and as I hinted before, Germany's economy is picking up again slowly, and all France needs is a Neoliberal (gasp!) Thatcher-type character and Britain can kiss its superiority complex goodbye.

UK
GDP (purchasing power parity): $1.782 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 3.2% (2004 est.) [And as said before, in 2005 it went down to 1.9%]

Germany
GDP (purchasing power parity): $2.362 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 1.7% (2004 est.)

France:
GDP (purchasing power parity): $1.737 trillion (2004 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 2.1% (2004 est.)

oh and now pay even more towards French farmers. Who would prop these lazy, inefficient nationalists up if we weren't around?
Wanna know who pays more than you?
Germany for example. And France. In fact, France pays the most of the rebate, because they have to scramble for the money that the UK doesn't want to pay. And Italy. Italy has to pay for the rebate too.

Stop pretending people are squeezing you. It's the other way around.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41065000/gif/_41065272_net_pay_gra203.gif

Without any detailed information on these peoples' characters I cant say what I do / dont have in common with them. All you've done is say bad / unusual things about them in the hope that I will accept that that is all there is to them. *shrug*
So how can anyone say then that they don't have anything in common with the people on the continent? I don't think any British person could actually have met all of them, could they?

With his "The rich help the poor" nations like Ireland and Portugal are now much more wealthier than they would have been on there own...

Which we are much obliged for *tips cap* ;)

Without any detailed information on these peoples' characters I cant say what I do / dont have in common with them. All you've done is say bad / unusual things about them in the hope that I will accept that that is all there is to them. *shrug*

If you'd read between the lines, I was saying that Britian is an amazingly diverse place. You might indeed have more in common with French farmers or Spanish plumbers than with your fellow citizens.

Sadly, language is always more of a border than any river, eh?