NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, before you attack me for being an evil, nasty, baby-killing BNP fascist nutter, please hear me out. My question is a genuine appeal for reasoning from any staunch pro-EUians out there, because until recently I was pro-EU but more and more am failing to see the point in it for us. This is my basic anti-EU argument:

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.
- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.
- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.
- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.
- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.
- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.
- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.
You get back 66 cents on every Euro you pay. Stop whining you little bitches.
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.
And it will be closed completly when the UK pulls out. For the UK that is.

- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.
Eventhough I agree in principal. Britain is in on that as well.
- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.
Yeah. Merkel, Berlusconi, Balke(ll)nende. All socialists. Blair is of the Labour party is he not?

- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.
I don't recall any EULA's like that. And if they do exist no one pays attention to them.

- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
Sure. Thats nothing new. Britain signed up for that like the rest.

- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.
In other words you want Britain to have only the benefits but non of the plights. Some of which are caused by Britain as well.

- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.

Eeeeh...of course.

- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.
You have oil reserves? Better not let the Americans catch wind of that. And what other EU states are you refering to?

In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.
Blame your parents/grandparents. They are the ones that voted you in.

Based on Von Witzleben's response I would say the answer is "You shouldn't!". The EU is starting to look like a slow motion car wreck and I think that left to its own devices you would find it becoming a Mandarin government and culture not unlike the sort China had during the Manchu dynasty. Not a bad place to live in if you don't mind being the loss of little things like freedom of thought, freedom of religion, the right to travel and so on but not the sort of that I would imagine most Britons would care for. :rolleyes:

You get back 66 cents on every Euro you pay. Stop whining you little bitches.
And we never get back 34% of what we pay. How does this benefit us?

And it will be closed completly when the UK pulls out. For the UK that is.
See point below about European Free Trade Area.

Eventhough I agree in principal. Britain is in on that as well.
And this makes it good for us? The EU is dominated by France and its allies, as is the commission, which is how France can basically ignore every EU rule and yet enforce them on others.

Yeah. Merkel, Berlusconi, Balke(ll)nende. All socialists. Blair is of the Labour party is he not?
I'm referring more to the French, bur yes Merkel is basically Socialist as her hands are tied by the "Grand Coalition". Berlusconi is a protectionist, yes. Dont know who the other one is.

I don't recall any EULA's like that. And if they do exist no one pays attention to them.
It's called the European Working Time Directive. It's been in the papers quite a bit...

Sure. Thats nothing new. Britain signed up for that like the rest.
Again - how does this make it good for us? I know it's not new - that's why I'm saying it.


In other words you want Britain to have only the benefits but non of the plights. Some of which are caused by Britain as well.
No, I don't. The "plights" are completely needless and, like all the other countries, I think British should be nationalist.

Eeeeh...of course.
Again, I know that it's true. That's why I said it. Again, how does this make it good for us?

You have oil reserves? Better not let the Americans catch wind of that. And what other EU states are you refering to?
Wtf? We have more oil reserves than the Americans. Also, google the Common Fisheries Policy (on the fisheries stuff, obviously) and also Article III-157 of the proposed EU constitution. Our oil reserves that were given over were mainly given to Norway IIRC.

Blame your parents/grandparents. They are the ones that voted you in.
Yeah I think you've missed the point of this thread. I'm not looking for someone to blame, I'm looking for someone to present actual arguments as to why the EU is good for Britain. All you have done is insulted me and provided stupid and irrelevent answers or counter questions.

You get back 66 cents on every Euro you pay. Stop whining you little bitches.
Gee, that's a good deal.

How about we pay nothing in and keep the extra 34 cents?

Based on Von Witzleben's response I would say the answer is "You shouldn't!". The EU is starting to look like a slow motion car wreck and I think that left to its own devices you would find it becoming a Mandarin government and culture not unlike the sort China had during the Manchu dynasty. Not a bad place to live in if you don't mind being the loss of little things like freedom of thought, freedom of religion, the right to travel and so on but not the sort of that I would imagine most Britons would care for. :rolleyes:
Under the EU you predict a loss of the right to travel. You're a funny guy!

Free movement within the EU - a fundamental right (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/freetravel/fsj_freetravel_intro_en.htm)


I also see no evidence of a future loss of freedom of thought or freedom of religion.

The EU actually wants to ban Fascist parties...

I don't recall any EULA's like that. And if they do exist no one pays attention to them.



Surely this is part of what is being complained about, theres this monolithic entity of laws which seem to be enforced rigorously on everyone except France Germany and Spain, who get to ignore whatever they find inconvenient.

Common fisheries policy=huge joke. The rules are meant to be enforced by the Spanish for gods sake! they have perhaps the greatest history of ignoring quotas, regulations on mesh sizes for nets, minimum size of fish to be taken etc.
Also. now that the North Sea has effectively been turned into a desert through rampant overfishing and beam trawling,the european fleets are heading off south to denude the waters around developing nations in Africa.

The common agricultural policy is also a farce, the UK would have given up its rebate some time ago if France would accept CAP reform, but as France gets huge quantities of CAP funding it refuses.
The international poverty line is what? $1 per day? I forget exactly, but I seem to remember being astonished to find that French COWS recieve a CAP subsidy of more money than a large percentage of the world's human population survive off.

I agree with von Witzleben's reply.

And FYI - Norway is NOT part of the EU.

I agree with von Witzleben's reply.

And FYI - Norway is NOT part of the EU.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. They are in the Free Trade Area. The EU has forced us to give oil to someone, however, and their free market rules that are enforced on everyone except the central continental hegemony have forced us to sell drilling rights to Russian state owned energy companies.

Under the EU you predict a loss of the right to travel. You're a funny guy!

Free movement within the EU - a fundamental right (http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/freetravel/fsj_freetravel_intro_en.htm).

Lots of cool rights in the constitution of the fallen USSR (& boy is it fun to remember that it's fallen!) too.


I also see no evidence of a future loss of freedom of thought or freedom of religion.

I'm sure you don't. If you did would you stick around? But these things do follow the dominance of an unelected government by admin-types.

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.

That is only in terms of the budget. What we profit from in trade isnt factored into that equation. Plus we still have the rebate as a bargining chip which is useful when it comes to reform the CAP


- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.

I'm not quite sure what your talking about here. I'm studying the EU at degree level and there is a single market. No internal restrictions on movement of capital or persons.


- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.

Not true. The Parliament and the COM have Codecision (as outlined in the TEU) which means essentially that the COM cannot act unilatteraly to introduce a directive


- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.

Could you elaborate on how this affects us directly. The only significent EU change this has brought about is the depoliticization of the Bank of England and New Labour wanted to do that anyway


- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.


While there is a lot of EU madness about, the majority of it is dremt up by the tabloids. The laws you speek of refer to enforce labour. IE the workers cannot sign an employment contract that forces them to work that much


- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.

Why is that nessecarly bad. Besides its run on a pricnple of subsidiarity. Which basicly means that those functions are best delt with at a European level are delt with at a European level, those that arnt are delt with at a national level, or whichever level suits them best.


- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.

The EFTA fell apart. The economic side naturally leads to political elements


- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.

And why is that nessecarly bad


- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

The statement about oil is inaccurate. However the CFP has set quotas so no Forigen fisherman can fish too much in British waters, so dont worry


In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.

Well its simple. Individual European countries cannot compete to the same level on a world stage as nations like America, China and Japan. Under a single economic union, these nations can do far better. In 10 years the Chinese middle class will be the same size as the British population. With almost 500 million people the EU is the largest single market in the world today.

I agree with von Witzleben's reply.

And FYI - Norway is NOT part of the EU.
:D I was wondering how long it would take for someone to figure that out.

Short answer: The EU is fundamentally an union of common values. In practice, for example, there's the value of paying attention to food safety: you can trust that food made in another EU country is just as safe as in your country. With co-operation, this sort of trust can be established between the nations. Values aren't values if they don't cost anything, and that includes co-operation.

That is only in terms of the budget. What we profit from in trade isnt factored into that equation. Plus we still have the rebate as a bargining chip which is useful when it comes to reform the CAP
This used to be my main argument, but we can get all the trade benefits through the EFTA anyway, and if we are not bound by it why do we care about reforming the CAP?

I'm not quite sure what your talking about here. I'm studying the EU at degree level and there is a single market. No internal restrictions on movement of capital or persons.
You don't need a degree to see what France, Spain, Italy, Etc. have done to protect their "national champions" illegally. It's in the papers for goodness sake!

Not true. The Parliament and the COM have Codecision (as outlined in the TEU) which means essentially that the COM cannot act unilatteraly to introduce a directive
Not entirely true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit

Could you elaborate on how this affects us directly. The only significent EU change this has brought about is the depoliticization of the Bank of England and New Labour wanted to do that anyway
Well for one they insist that we subsidise their farmers through the silly CAP. For another the EU keeps passing social legislation of the sort that would never get through the British Parliament, ie the Working Time Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive).

While there is a lot of EU madness about, the majority of it is dremt up by the tabloids. The laws you speek of refer to enforce labour. IE the workers cannot sign an employment contract that forces them to work that much
Yes - ie. Socialism. Rights are taken from people to work as much as they want and an arbitary limit is imposed. This is deeply rooted in ideology, and I do not believe that Westminster would pass it.

Why is that nessecarly bad. Besides its run on a pricnple of subsidiarity.
Because I want Britain to control Britain. Is that really so strange?

Which basicly means that those functions are best delt with at a European level are delt with at a European level, those that arnt are delt with at a national level, or whichever level suits them best.[/qyite]
Except for EU policy on things that only concern the EU, nothing should be dealt with at the EU level. Why should the EU regulate working times? I'll tell you why - to drag everyone else down to the inefficient levels of the French economy.

[quote]The EFTA fell apart. The economic side naturally leads to political elements
No... it's still going strong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Area)

And why is that nessecarly bad
Again, I want Britain to be run by Britain, and for British laws to be imposed by British representatives elected by British people. Perhaps I'm just an old romanticist.

Wait - if food safety is a concern - why shouldn't we kick the "mad cow" GB out of the EU?

(Yes, I am joking!)

Gee, that's a good deal.
Thats certainly a good deal. The Dutch and Germans pay tremendisly more then you wankers.

How about we pay nothing in and keep the extra 34 cents?
How about we then close the market for British products to compensate?

Well its simple. Individual European countries cannot compete to the same level on a world stage as nations like America, China and Japan.
Alright. A little off topic here. But this is something I always wondered about. China and the US I get. But what makes Japan so different?

:D I was wondering how long it would take for someone to figure that out.
Well ain'tya glad I showed up? :p

Thats certainly a good deal. The Dutch and Germans pay tremendisly more then you wankers.
How about we then close the market for British products to compensate?
Yeah, exactly. You hear me complaining about those EU payments? No! Why? Because the EU definitely has more advantages than disadvantages for our economy. The same goes for the British. You just have to admit it :D

They are smart, those Japanese. (Honestly, I don't know. Gotta have to do s.th. with their industry and work-ethics? And their history after WWII, being sorta allied with the US?)

However the CFP has set quotas so no Forigen fisherman can fish too much in British waters, so dont worry


The problem is that the area that is considered "British waters" under the CFP is vastly smaller than the area that would be considered such if Britain was not part of the EU, we have most of the EU's non-mediterranean coastline. Our politicians just traded it away to the EU years ago, i assume in exchange for concessions in other areas. Also foreign fishermen are allowed to register their vessels in UK ports, and therefore grab portions of British quotas.

The main issue is that as a whole the EU has a fishing fleet that is far to big for its waters to support, but no individual nation wants to have to bite the political bullet and slash its fleet, therefore fish stocks will continue to plummet untill the industry is beyond help.

Thats certainly a good deal. The Dutch and Germans pay tremendisly more then you wankers.
Ah, so your definition of a good deal is "if someone else is making more of a loss than us, we're getting a bargain!"

Your language certainly encourages a spirit of European harmony.

How about we then close the market for British products to compensate?
How about you do that then, and we'll keep the money?

You're such a good debater. Just throw insults about and act like you're in charge. I feel converted already!

The EU is a mess. A total, shambolic mess, and it needs serious reform. If it doesn't have reform it will collapse in on itself. I realise the horror this must instill in you, as your great leaders have thrown themselves into things such as monetary union for political rather than economic reasons, but really, do grow up and learn to speak politely.

I'm referring more to the French, bur yes Merkel is basically Socialist as her hands are tied by the "Grand Coalition". Berlusconi is a protectionist, yes. Dont know who the other one is.
The other ist the Dutch PM. And the German SPD is about as socialist these days as the British Labour party.


It's called the European Working Time Directive. It's been in the papers quite a bit...
And how many hours are you allowed to work accodring to that? Cause I would have to call my dad and let him know that he can't work his usual 60-70 hours a week anymore.


No, I don't. The "plights" are completely needless and, like all the other countries, I think British should be nationalist.
Then Britain shouldn't have pushed so hard to get 10 countries in the EU at once.

Ah, so your definition of a good deal is "if someone else is making more of a loss than us, we're getting a bargain!"

Your language certainly encourages a spirit of European harmony.


How about you do that then, and we'll keep the money?

You're such a good debater. Just throw insults about and act you're in charge. I feel converted already!

The EU is a mess. A total, shambolic mess, and it needs serious reform. If it doesn't have reform it will collapse in on itself. I realise the horror this must instill in you, as your great leaders have thrown themselves into things such as monetary union for political rather than economic reasons, but really, do grow up and learn to speak politely.

See, that is where the difference lies: You see the EU from an economic perspective with the political body as an extra.
I see the EU as a political body with the economy being just one part of it.

That's why I don't mind contributing to the common cause which is the EU. What would you prefer? Getting paid to be in it?!?

Alright. A little off topic here. But this is something I always wondered about. China and the US I get. But what makes Japan so different?

Their VAST technological economy, Japanese owned companies produce a sizeable proportion of the world's cars and sophisticated electronics, and their citizens buy staggering quantities of consumer electronics.

See, that is where the difference lies: You see the EU from an economic perspective with the political body as an extra.
I see the EU as a political body with the economy being just one part of it.

That's why I don't mind contributing to the common cause which is the EU. What would you prefer? Getting paid to be in it?!?
My original comment was actually only referring to our 'bargain deal.' I would not support leaving the EU; I just think it is in serious need of reform. For more than ten years now the auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts because they cannot account for more than 65% of the budget; this is an improvement on previous years when 90% went missing. If the EU wasn't so corrupt it wouldn't have a cash crisis.

I objected to being called a 'wanker' simply for pointing out that a loss of 34 cents per Euro is not a good deal.

Wait - if food safety is a concern - why shouldn't we kick the "mad cow" GB out of the EU?

(Yes, I am joking!)
Actually France has had more cases of BSE than Britain (and the combined number is far less than cases of salmonela anyway - irrevelvently small, in fact), but they illegally banned exports of British beef using their leaverage in the EU and so destroyed our beef industry for the benefit of their own.

Ah, so your definition of a good deal is "if someone else is making more of a loss than us, we're getting a bargain!"
You certainly do have a bargain there. Free acces to the common market at a third of the price.

Your language certainly encourages a spirit of European harmony.
:D Britain of course is the center of harmony.


How about you do that then, and we'll keep the money?
Write your PM then.

You're such a good debater. Just throw insults about and act you're in charge. I feel converted already!
Insults? Where do I just throw insults about?

The EU is a mess. A total, shambolic mess, and it needs serious reform. If it doesn't have reform it will collapse in on itself. I realise the horror this must instill in you, as your great leaders have thrown themselves into things such as monetary union for political rather than economic reasons, but really, do grow up and learn to speak politely.
Grow up and don't make just assumptions about what would horrofie me.

Their VAST technological economy, Japanese owned companies produce a sizeable proportion of the world's cars and sophisticated electronics, and their citizens buy staggering quantities of consumer electronics.
Thats all?:confused:

ah this is like the story i heard of one of the major EU nations ( It may have been Germany) claiming to be a substantial net exporter of rice... all those european paddy fields are doing so well...

My original comment was actually only referring to our 'bargain deal.' I would not support leaving the EU; I just think it is in serious need of reform. For more than ten years now the auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts because they cannot account for more than 65% of the budget; this is an improvement on previous years when 90% went missing. If the EU wasn't so corrupt it wouldn't have a cash crisis.

I objected to being called a 'wanker' simply for pointing out that a loss of 34 cents per Euro is not a good deal.
I never called you names (at least not that I could remember) but I can absolutely agree with the EU needing an overhaul. Problem is, the new constitution would've helped that notion. Too bad that the Dutch and the French voted against it out of spite against their current governments.

Blame your parents/grandparents. They are the ones that voted you in.
Actually they voted to join the EEC not the EU which grew up around the EEC but are technically two distinctly different things.

Europe, if it actually followed its ideals, is a good thing to be involved in. It guarantees the freedom of markets and of movement throughout an ever growing economic and political area, which can only be good for British industry and society. The problem comes when the idea of the free trade area comes under fire, most recently from the French, whenever any attempt is made to purchase or operate a company within their Countries. It should either be operated as a free trade area or not, but it can't be operated both ways.

Thats all?:confused:
my understanding of asian macroeconomics is rather... limited :) sorry i cant be of more help
:rolleyes:

ah this is like the story i heard of one of the major EU nations ( It may have been Germany) claiming to be a substantial net exporter of rice... all those european paddy fields are doing so well...
Rice? Are you sure it wasn't sugar? Cause Germany does produce lot's of that.

The new constitution would have allowed the EU to seize the North Sea oil reserves, just like these seized our fisheries.

Read this (http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/).

Thats all?:confused:
Apparently, that's enough!

ah this is like the story i heard of one of the major EU nations ( It may have been Germany) claiming to be a substantial net exporter of rice... all those european paddy fields are doing so well...
I don't think Germany produces rice. Never heard of it. Could be, highly unlikely.

my understanding of asian macroeconomics is rather... limited :) sorry i cant be of more help
:rolleyes:
Ah well. Thanks anyway.

I never called you names (at least not that I could remember) but I can absolutely agree that the EU needs an overhaul. Problem is, the new constitution would've helped that notion. Too bad that the Dutch and the French voted against it out of spite against their current governments.
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you.

I agree the referendum was essential to the growth of the EU. At the moment, it has over expanded and the structures aren't in place to deal with the bigger beast. This is why I seriously question how long the EU can survive - it was hard enough getting 15 nations to agree on anything, but will 25 ever find common ground?

With 65% of the budget lost to corruption and 40% of what we do have going to the CAP, it's easy to question the benefits of the EU. I think it is a good idea in theory, but in practice it needs a massive overhaul if it's going to make it for another 50 years.

Rice? Are you sure it wasn't sugar? Cause Germany does produce lot's of that.
Yes, sugar could've been it! They grow sugar beets everywhere...

Rice? Are you sure it wasn't sugar? Cause Germany does produce lot's of that.
it was definitely rice, although as i said I am not sure the country involved was Germany.
The only reason it stuck in my head was the absurdity of vast acres of rice paddies in Western Europe.
I think it was supplied as an example of the shameful embezzelment of CAP funds that goes on.

I never called you names (at least not that I could remember) but I can absolutely agree with the EU needing an overhaul. Problem is, the new constitution would've helped that notion. Too bad that the Dutch and the French voted against it out of spite against their current governments.
It actually had more to do with the eeeeh...whats the word?....fehlenden transparens of the EU. And in case of the Netherlands the money. And Turkey beeing voted in over the heads of the people. And the list goes on and on and on.

This used to be my main argument, but we can get all the trade benefits through the EFTA anyway, and if we are not bound by it why do we care about reforming the CAP?

Except that with EFTA, you have the danger of one coutry becoming overpowerful and invading the other countries economy to the point of depence. With the EU we have a situation where everyone competes on a level playing field


You don't need a degree to see what France, Spain, Italy, Etc. have done to protect their "national champions" illegally. It's in the papers for goodness sake!

Your going to have to elaborate on this one. Provide some specifc examples and evidence. And yes the EU may not work properly now, but if it did it would be spectacular.


Not entirely true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit


The democratic deficit is not as significent as people think. The areas of codecsion that are not covered are very small. And also, since the entire EU process continues at the will of national governments, it is entirely democratic. Not as directly so as the MS governments of course, but it is still democratic. And had the constitution been ratified it would be even more so.


Well for one they insist that we subsidise their farmers through the silly CAP. For another the EU keeps passing social legislation of the sort that would never get through the British Parliament, ie the Working Time Directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive).

Yes the CAP needs reform and yes the legislation is sometimes excessive, but the point of it is to get everyone on a level playing field


Yes - ie. Socialism. Rights are taken from people to work as much as they want and an arbitary limit is imposed. This is deeply rooted in ideology, and I do not believe that Westminster would pass it.

Thats your opinion, not a reason


Because I want Britain to control Britain. Is that really so strange?

That is self-deterimation logic, and leads ultimately to "I want London to control London, I want Manchester to control Manchester, I want Croydon to control Croydon, I want Purley to control Purley" etc

Subsidarity means that at the level best suited to solving the problem is the solution to the problem devised.


Except for EU policy on things that only concern the EU, nothing should be dealt with at the EU level. Why should the EU regulate working times? I'll tell you why - to drag everyone else down to the inefficient levels of the French economy.

To make Europe a level economic playing field and encorgae external trade. Businesses will be much happier comming to several European countries if they know they only have to operate by one set of rules. Then they can have a Dutch branch, a Belguin branch, a British branch without having to deal with a new set of laws.


No... it's still going strong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Area)

EFTA was set up to combat the EEC (when it was the EEC). The fact is it failed and has little to no influence left. It also does not create a level economic playing field like the EU can.


Again, I want Britain to be run by Britain, and for British laws to be imposed by British representatives elected by British people. Perhaps I'm just an old romanticist.

An opinion, not an argument.

Ok, before you attack me for being an evil, nasty, baby-killing BNP fascist nutter, please hear me out. My question is a genuine appeal for reasoning from any staunch pro-EUians out there, because until recently I was pro-EU but more and more am failing to see the point in it for us. This is my basic anti-EU argument:

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.
- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.
- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.
- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.
- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.
- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.
- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.


I personally believe that Uk should leave the EU. From what i am learning in my EU politics class, the UK is really not benefited much by the EU.

It actually had more to do with the eeeeh...whats the word?....fehlenden transparens of the EU. And in case of the Netherlands the money. And Turkey beeing voted in over the heads of the people. And the list goes on and on and on.
Oh, yeah. Well, thing is, though - what are the alternatives?

It actually had more to do with the eeeeh...whats the word?....fehlenden transparens of the EU. And in case of the Netherlands the money. And Turkey beeing voted in over the heads of the people. And the list goes on and on and on.
No it really was spite for most people in the Netherlands. You give people too much credit. I voted no too, but because it didn't go far enough.

Oh, yeah. Well, thing is, though - what are the alternatives?
Complete openess to what they are up to. Active participation of the people. I'm talking referendums on big things like the constitution or Turkey. A constitution that doesn't name NATO as the pillar of the common defense policy. Public flockings of politicians I don't like. Zero pay for EU politicians. (They either do it because they believe in it or they can go to hell.)

No it really was spite for most people in the Netherlands. You give people too much credit. I voted no too, but because it didn't go far enough.
What didn't go far enough?

What didn't go far enough?
The so-called 'constitution'. It's a piece of shit with way too much compromises.

Zero pay for EU politicians. (They either do it because they believe in it or they can go to hell.)
Nice theory, but if they're not being paid it does kinda limit those who will be politicians to those who have either: a) lots of money already or b) supported by groups or businesses that provide them with money, so political independence goes out the window, in theory at least.

The so-called 'constitution'. It's a piece of shit with way too much compromises.
Ik begrijp het even niet meer helemaal. Wat ging er nou precies niet ver genoeg?

Ik begrijp het even niet meer helemaal. Wat ging er nou precies niet ver genoeg?
The reforms. Not enough transparancy and even more red tape.

one of my least favourite things about the european parliament was when Blair used it as a way of keeping the disgraced Peter Mandelson in a job after he was forced to resign from the UK government. He was unfit to be an elected UK politician but an "excellent choice" for a UK MEP.

If the system can work like this how can it be trusted?

Nice theory, but if they're not being paid it does kinda limit those who will be politicians to those who have either: a) lots of money already or b) supported by groups or businesses that provide them with money, so political independence goes out the window, in theory at least.
Beeing 'supported', financialy, by groups or businesses shoud be outlawed. They get a budget to work with. Free lodgings. But no paycheck at the end of the month.

Thats certainly a good deal. The Dutch and Germans pay tremendisly more then you wankers.


How about we then close the market for British products to compensate?

Im actually really interested by this post, I'm on neither side of the debate, but the original post raises some really interesting questions which no one as been able to counter yet with a list of positives for Britain to be in the EU. Rather there has been just a number of "shut up and live with it" posts, a seemingly very French approach. ;)

Britain was declined entry to the EEC originally (not the EU) in 63 and 67 because De Gaulles was president of France and was threatened by the leverage the UK would have in the EEC because he wanted France to be the heavyweight. That policy has pretty much continued ever since with a tit-for-tat go between with each country trying to get the upper hand on the other.

The EU cannot function with such policy. To me the EU is no longer about finding common ground it is about (and I include the UK) one country trying to exert its power over another to be in control therefore do not see any benefits politically of being in the EU.

Economically it is different and the stats speak for themselves, 60% of UK exports is to the EU (the main being Scandinavia and Holland) but a number of historians (a growing number) now say that the UK may have been better off staying out

Beeing 'supported', financialy, by groups or businesses shoud be outlawed. They get a budget to work with. Free lodgings. But no paycheck at the end of the month.
Than it just becomes bribary, which is what has happened in set ups like you describe through out history.

Than it just becomes bribary, which is what has happened in set ups like you describe through out history.
It happens even in setups we have today. Where politicians do get payed. So that wouldn't be much different.

Britain was declined entry to the EEC originally (not the EU) in 63 and 67 because De Gaulles was president of France and was threatened by the leverage the UK would have in the EEC because he wanted France to be the heavyweight. That policy has pretty much continued ever since with a tit-for-tat go between with each country trying to get the upper hand on the other.

Well thats actually not tue.

De Gaulle declined British entry not through any misplaced Nationalism or Anti-English sentiment, but merely because he foresaw (rightly so) that at the time a British entry into a fragile enough Europe would destabilise the balance- Britain at the time was very much in the pocket of the United States- their 'Special Relationship' was extremely close in the 50's and 60's.

He rightly saw it as an attempt for American influence into European affairs via the back door of Britain. Europe was beginning to develop its own policies seperate from American influence- but as Britain was still such a close ally of the US, they would have been a good bridge for the US to attempt to impose their influence.

Simple politics.

Lots of cool rights in the constitution of the fallen USSR (& boy is it fun to remember that it's fallen!) too.




I'm sure you don't. If you did would you stick around? But these things do follow the dominance of an unelected government by admin-types.
Except you can see that right in action, I can study anywhere in the EU, work anywhere in the EU and live anywhere in the EU! Try backing up what you're saying. You're saying because there needs to be more democracy it's going to one day turn into the USSR instead of maybe the more likely future of there being more democracy!?

The EU actually wants to ban Fascist parties...
Could I have a source? There's a lot of untrue rumors about the EU (bendy banana regulations is one)

Actually France has had more cases of BSE than Britain (and the combined number is far less than cases of salmonela anyway - irrevelvently small, in fact), but they illegally banned exports of British beef using their leaverage in the EU and so destroyed our beef industry for the benefit of their own.
Bullshit. Cite sources for that, or retract it.

Quote:
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.

And it will be closed completly when the UK pulls out. For the UK that is.






The UK imports far more from the EU than it exports, guess all those French and German car makers would scream like hell if the UK put up trade barriers to EU products in retaliation

The EU is corrupt , inept and run by has-beens.

The whole structure reminds me of a bunch of deckchair attendents re-arranging the deckchairs on the titanic.... looks good, but ultimatly futile because the whole structure is fundementaly flawed............ and sinking:D

Long Live European Federalism!

http://www.euromove.org.uk/

The UK imports far more from the EU than it exports, guess all those French and German car makers would scream like hell if the UK put up trade barriers to EU products in retaliation
Uhu..Germany beeing the Uk's 2nd largest global export market wouldn't realy hurt the UK if trade barriers were placed. Dream on.

Having briefly looked at the thread here is my reply. In one sentence - I think you need to do more research into what the EU actually does and does not do.

And the long answer -
pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.We pay 'massive amounts out to the EU because we are a, believe it or not, very rich state. Apart from the CAP the largest expenditure of the EU is the Regional Development Fund (Agency?). This has helped to transform Ireland from a basket case economy to a net contributor to EU, it has helped cities like Birmingham attract more business. The EU has also helped the British economy in the past. The UK hasn't always been a net contributor. The British government also gives aid to third world countries, but gets nothing in return. Should we stop giving aid to these countries?- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.Last time I checked Germany was the major state AND practised free market economics. Want to guess why the monetarist European Central Bank is in Frankfurt, which incidently was also modeled on the German Bundesbank.- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.Did you ever stop to look at who actually makes up the Council of Ministers? They are the elected representatives of member states. If any thing passes into EU law then you can be sure that a senior member of the Cabinet let it pass. Also, the parliament can send any legislation back to be amended by the commission indefinately.- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.The EU is currently dominated by no one. Though there is a possibility that the 'third way' governments of Germany and the UK could collaborate. Though this doesn't seem to have happened yet.- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.I don't know about you, but I'd prefer it if my doctor wasn't allowed to work over 50 hours a week, especially if they're a junior. September is already called the 'killing spree' in the medical profession, it doesn't need to be compounded by juniors being deprived of sleep.- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.If the EU's power didn't encroach on national governments' powers in the slightest then there'd be no point in having the supranational institution in the first place. And again for the courts. But, we also agreed to have the European Courts overrule our national courts in the treaty of Maastricht. Like you say, if we don't like this we can pull out.- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.EFTA isn't expected to be permanent. The members of these states are expected to join the union eventually. eg When Norway's North Sea oil runs out. *edit* - And, EFTA members have no say in what is actually agreed upon. All they can do is opt in or opt out.- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.And I'm not aware of any incident regarding your last point.

Well thats actually not tue.

De Gaulle declined British entry not through any misplaced Nationalism or Anti-English sentiment, but merely because he foresaw (rightly so) that at the time a British entry into a fragile enough Europe would destabilise the balance- Britain at the time was very much in the pocket of the United States- their 'Special Relationship' was extremely close in the 50's and 60's.

He rightly saw it as an attempt for American influence into European affairs via the back door of Britain. Europe was beginning to develop its own policies seperate from American influence- but as Britain was still such a close ally of the US, they would have been a good bridge for the US to attempt to impose their influence.

Simple politics.
I would say that the idea that de Gaulle rejected Britain's application because he feared losing control in the EC was true. The Benelux countries weren't very receptive towards the idea of the CAP, but went along with it for the sake of other benefits. Had the UK joined the CAP might have never existed, let alone be as strong as it is today. Had the UK joined the EC France's position as hegemon on the EC would have be under threat. That is the main reason I see for de Gaulle denying the UK membership. It's hardly surprising to note that the CAP was still being negioated when the UK first applied to join the EC.

I'm not sure whether I'd support Britain being in the EU if I were a British subject. My only perspective on the matter is coloured by my being an ignorant American. But if I had my druthers, I'd think that having the EU is more problematic than it's worth due in no small measure to the compromises it seems most nations have to make to their own sovereignty.

At the moment, it seems like Britain is doing quite well with the EU.

They got a lot of money in earlier years, paid by French, German and other taxpayers. They did well out of it. Thatcher's ridiculous foreign "policy" got you a rebate.

Many countries pay a lot more than the British do, particularly Sweden and Germany. Those countries (and the French pay a big chunk as well) have to make up for your rebate.

Yes, the CAP is a stupid policy, and I would love to see it abolished. But the fact is that the majority of representatives has decided to continue it - and on no level does France have enough weight to make that decision alone.

Then Britain had the presidency. They had the chance to present their argument and set things in motion - and absolutely squat was what we saw. Except of course that Blair managed to scare away the real base of support the UK had - the Eastern European new members.

What I would like to see by the way is for East Germany, which right now is in a desperate economic state, to be recognised as a seperate economic zone to the West, and that it gets the Ireland treatment. That would be neat.

So, it's not enough that your economy is increasingly relying on recruited, hand-picked and underpayed seasonal work. No, you want to have absolutely no responsability towards the employees.

The UK may have a bit to lose by joining the EU, but they certainly have much more to lose by being left behind. Globalization is inevitable at this point. The world is moving towards increasingly larger and larger political and economic blocs. Roll with it. Who knows? Might work out for the best.

Based on Von Witzleben's response I would say the answer is "You shouldn't!". The EU is starting to look like a slow motion car wreck and I think that left to its own devices you would find it becoming a Mandarin government and culture not unlike the sort China had during the Manchu dynasty. Not a bad place to live in if you don't mind being the loss of little things like freedom of thought, freedom of religion, the right to travel and so on but not the sort of that I would imagine most Britons would care for. :rolleyes:

they would miss it less than you think......

Complete openess to what they are up to. Active participation of the people. I'm talking referendums on big things like the constitution or Turkey. A constitution that doesn't name NATO as the pillar of the common defense policy. Public flockings of politicians I don't like. Zero pay for EU politicians. (They either do it because they believe in it or they can go to hell.)

Zero pay for politicians doesn't work as well as you think. You either end up with the rich only as politicians, or politicians so tied to special interests as too not be representative. Its been tried by US States for generations.

Of course a pessemist would point out that a lot of what I said is true anyway.

Beeing 'supported', financialy, by groups or businesses shoud be outlawed. They get a budget to work with. Free lodgings. But no paycheck at the end of the month.

and they support their families how exactly?

As an American observer I think the British would be wise to remain in the EU, if for no other reason then to curtail excesses and to remain part of a continental economy allowing it to compete with NAFTA, ASEAN and the eventual Chinese super economy.

Of course the British have one advantage the other Europeans don't have. If it came down to it, because of the long alliance with the United States and its continued ties with many British Commonwealth nations, it could create or join another trade bloc (such as NAFTA or form something similar with the British Commonwealth Nations)

The EU without Britian would ultimately be dominated economically by Germany, which will eventually complete the modernization of the former DDR and Germany is already the largest nation in Europe by population, resources and economic productivity. An EU with Germany, France and Britian is a much more stable Europe.

Which the 20th Century showed is highly desirable.

to defend itself against america.

=^^=
.../\...

Ok, before you attack me for being an evil, nasty, baby-killing BNP fascist nutter, please hear me out. My question is a genuine appeal for reasoning from any staunch pro-EUians out there, because until recently I was pro-EU but more and more am failing to see the point in it for us. This is my basic anti-EU argument:

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.
- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.
- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.
- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.
- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.
- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.
- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.

Defenitely, you're different.

After Germany, you are the most saving country in the EU.

to defend itself against america.

=^^=
.../\...

...

What?

I'm sure you don't. If you did would you stick around? But these things do follow the dominance of an unelected government by admin-types.

The EU parliament is ELECTED!!!

The EU actually wants to ban Fascist parties...

What's wrong with that? I'm surprised they aren't banned already.

What's wrong with that? I'm surprised they aren't banned already.

It's suppressing freedom of politics and expression. We may hate fascist parties, but they should have the right to campaign and be heard, just as it is the right of all sensible people to ignore and deride them.

You get back 66 cents on every Euro you pay. Stop whining you little bitches.


Do you realize what you just said?

66 cents on every Euro means they get less then what they pay for?


And it will be closed completly when the UK pulls out. For the UK that is.


Say who?


Yeah. Merkel, Berlusconi, Balke(ll)nende. All socialists. Blair is of the Labour party is he not?


And the positions of all those people are much more left-wing then Blair's despite that. Why do you think all their countries trail far behind Britain on the International Economic Freedom Index?


Blame your parents/grandparents. They are the ones that voted you in.

And now they can vote themselves out, no?

Do you realize what you just said?

66 cents on every Euro means they get less then what they pay for?

That's it. The richest countries help the poorer ones to grow. England, Germany, France, have this kind of negative balance, while Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. have benefits. This helps those poorer countries to develop with our common money.

And I can't do anything but agree with the idea. It happenend the same with Spain 20 years ago.

and they support their families how exactly?
The salvation army. Or other charitable organisations. Their familiy members can have a yellow sign on their cloths with the text: Politician relatives/spouse/daughter/son. That way citizens can donate money, cloths and food to them if they wish to.

That's it. The richest countries help the poorer ones to grow. England, Germany, France, have this kind of negative balance, while Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. have benefits. This helps those poorer countries to develop with our common money.

And I can't do anything but agree with the idea. It happenend the same with Spain 20 years ago.

So why should Britain agree with the idea?

Do you realize what you just said?

66 cents on every Euro means they get less then what they pay for?

They get back 2 thirds no matter what without even doing as much as farting. Show me one net contributor that has it better then the UK cry babies.

So why should Britain agree with the idea?

From a selfish point of view: it's a bigger tax-free market for the british export trade. If the UK leaves the EU, they'll have to pay taxes for selling their products in Ireland, France, Germany, Lithuania, and up to 25 countries whose population now adcquires british products paying the same than the local ones.

Oh, and say good bye to the annual 5,000 million€ income from the Central Bank.

They get back 2 thirds no matter what without even doing as much as farting. Show me one net contributor that has it better then the UK cry babies.
You really are just rude. Perhaps you should read the facts first.The reason the UK has its rebate is because it would be the largest net contributor otherwise. Just because your leaders are incapable of defending your own financial national interests is no reason to be rude to those who can.

They get back 2 thirds no matter what without even doing as much as farting. Show me one net contributor that has it better then the UK cry babies.

So why contribute at all?

it's a bigger tax-free market for the british export trade. If the UK leaves the EU, they'll have to pay taxes for selling their products in Ireland, France, Germany, Lithuania, and up to 25 countries whose population now adcquires british products paying the same than the local one

One can be part of a free-market agreement without paying silly contributions.

Ok, before you attack me for being an evil, nasty, baby-killing BNP fascist nutter, please hear me out. My question is a genuine appeal for reasoning from any staunch pro-EUians out there, because until recently I was pro-EU but more and more am failing to see the point in it for us. This is my basic anti-EU argument:

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.

I'm afraid I don't have the figures. If you could point me in the direction of where you got yours I would be obliged.


- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.

This is false. While countries such as Britain and Luxemburg have some of the higher implementation rates of EU law the worst offenders are Greece and the other poorer member states. The larger, better off member states all have fairly good implementation rates of EU law.
It is true that the enforcement mechanisms need to be improved and that implementation of EU law is a problem across the board, but that is not what you are saying.

- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.

You obviously don't have a clue how the political system in Europe works. The Commission is the sole body who can draft law. The Council is the legislator (not the council of ministers which is a completely separate body who deal with policy issues). The Parliament has final say on whether a law passes or not. If Parliament doesn’t agree then the law doesn't pass. Parliament may also suggest that the Commission legislate on certain issues.


- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.

This is nonsense, the largest voting block in the European Parliament is conservative.


- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.

Please go and read these regulations and directives if you are going to state them as fact. The Working Time Regulations state that there is a limit of an average of 48 hours a week which a worker can be required to work. Workers may choose to work longer hours if they wish.


- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.

We have voluntarily given over a portion of our Parliamentary supremacy to the EU. The EU was and is, from the moment Britain joined it, the supreme legislative body.


- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.

No we can't. Please read some of the history on the subject before you start spouting such drivel. The reason Britain joined the European Economic Area (EEA) was that it couldn't survive outside it. By remaining outside the EEA Britain was being affected by the policy coming out of it through the various trade rules that they had to comply with in order to do any business in Europe with no say in how things were run. By choosing to stay outside when it was founded Britain effectively put itself into a position where it had all the detriments with none of the benefits of being in the EEA.
If we left the EU we would be in exactly the same position.


- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.

To an extent this is true. The courts must follow the rulings of the European Court of Justice. However, the ECJ can only answer questions sent to them by the national courts through the Article 234 applications; it cannot just hear any appeals. Its supremacy is therefore limited by the member states. Also the number of Article 234 applications is minimal.
Also, courts do not make law they only interpret them. They never had the power to say what it wants our laws to be.


- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

No, a combination of laws has had the effect of saying that boats registered in a member state may fish in that member states waters. The Spanish may fish in our waters if they have a British registered ship, we may fish in their waters if we have a Spanish registered ship.


In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.

Well I suggest you actually get your research in academic texts rather than just getting your information from the Daily Mail. There are plenty of ways to back up the assertion that the EU is a bad thing. None of the things you have stated are good (or even accurate) reasons.

I don't have any objections to an economic union as it benefits everyone in Europe. And I don't mind richer countries paying to make the poorer ones better as when they're stronger we can reap the benefits when we trade with them. But there are still some things I hate about the EU. The CAP is the big one, I think it was a mistake that we ever gave up a penny of the rebate without seeing guarantees that the CAP would be reviewed. Other things I disagree with is the aim to turn Europe into a federal superstate. Just because economic union is a good thing, it doesn't mean political union is either necessary or desirable. We've had a lot of interference in things like human rights law and with this 'harmonisation' crap we'll no doubt end up becoming Europe's dumping ground for refugees. All it will result in is decisions being taken even further from the people than they are now. Also, they should not under any circumstancces let Turkey in. But I have to admit that Britain is guilty of pushing that one through, Blair was obviously trying to pacify his bosses in Washington.

And Von Witzleben, there's no need to insult anybody who disagrees with you.

Actually, the EU does not have an get-out option. It has not been provided for in the 'Constitution' ( which magnificently failed to pass ).
Dreadfully sorry, but it is a life-time-membership.

damn right! the eu sucks testicle and we should leave before they take all of our money (after converting it to the euro, that is):headbang:

Actually, the EU does not have an get-out option. It has not been provided for in the 'Constitution' ( which magnificently failed to pass ).
Dreadfully sorry, but it is a life-time-membership.

Well, I think that staying in the EU is voluntary, any country would leave whenever wanted.

One can be part of a free-market agreement without paying silly contributions.

The EU is not an usual free-trade market. It is founded on secular believings of european brotherhood. The idea is that richer countries help in the development of poorer countries in long-term treaties. We joined the EU 20 years ago, and the richer countries helped us in our development, so I see justice on helping the new and poorer members.

Now, have you ever heard of "olive oil"? :D

Well, I think that staying in the EU is voluntary, any country would leave whenever wanted.



Dreadfully sorry. Ain't any piece of EU legislation saying so. Can't recommend trying it.

It's pretty much what I would say to a notional Southerner who migh notionally ask me how I felt about Secession, circa 1856.
And I'd have to tell him:
I express no opinion on the merits of your case, but I must strongly caution you against testing it.


Coincidentally, your timeline seems to be a little bit off.
*grin*
Talk about 'dates' instead of 'olives'.

Dreadfully sorry. Ain't any piece of EU legislation saying so. Can't recommend trying it.

It's pretty much what I would say to a notional Southerner who migh notionally ask me how I felt about Secession, circa 1856.
And I'd have to tell him:
I express no opinion on the merits of your case, but I must strongly caution you against testing it.
You're comparing apples and oranges here - the situation between Britain and the EU is nothing like the situation between the southern states and the federal government in 1850s US. While there aren't any EU laws saying we can withdraw from the EU, in practice we can. If we were determined enough to get out of the EU (Which we aren't due to the economic consequences) then we would simply get rid of all the EU treaties we signed. The only way they could prevent us from doing it would be through force, like the federal government in the civil war. And the EU would hardly invade us!

According to the World Bank's "World development indicators" July 2005 GDP/capita of the four EFTA members is $50,569 compared to $31,736 of the EU 15 (not including the poor new countries). Britain has a trade deficit with the rest of Europe and due to the large number of jobs that depend on trade with Britain the UK would be able to negotiate a trade deal possibly even better than EFTA if the government could show it was serious (electing UKIP would do this).

Other reasons the EU is bad for britain:

the fact that a policy of "buy european" defence equipment rather than US-UK stuff means the armed forces have wasted an estimated £5000000000 (see Christopher Booker's articles in the Sunday Telegraph).

Europol (the name should be enough to put people off) although their immunity from prosecution could also.

EU accounts have not been audited for 10 years


The government, despite meaning asked more than once in the Lords, has refused to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership (I wonder why). Ian Milne did one and found that UK would be between £17 billion and £40 billion better off if it left the EU. (www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/EUFactsheet.php)

You're comparing apples and oranges here - the situation between Britain and the EU is nothing like the situation between the southern states and the federal government in 1850s US. While there aren't any EU laws saying we can withdraw from the EU, in practice we can. If we were determined enough to get out of the EU (Which we aren't due to the economic consequences) then we would simply get rid of all the EU treaties we signed. The only way they could prevent us from doing it would be through force, like the federal government in the civil war. And the EU would hardly invade us!

Somehow, I can imagine that particular line mutatis mutandis being told with a South Carolina accent...

In practise, the best outcome would be the UK ending up as an isolated outcast, and the worst case would have the look and feel of a fight with fragmentation grenades inside a phonebooth.

( added later )

If you don't appreciate the dangers of the course of action you contemplate, all I can say is:
So long, and thanks for all the fish!

haha despite my previous post, I am rather pro-EU, but now I've become a bit "reguided"

There isn't the slightest possibility that a responsible British government would remove Britian from the EU. The simple reality is that the EU was formed to stop Euriopeans killing each other, and to remove Britian might, in the short term be economically fruitful, it ultimately would lead to an economic slowdown and possibly military conflict. Those of an older generation that hate the EU haven't accepted that Britian's wealth is a result of the empire and the subsiquent economic mismanagement of her former colonies by their post colonial governments. Ultimately, when good governemnts slowly develop in Africa and the Middle East, they'll sort their debts out and no longer need Britian leaving her without resources - which ultimately is Britian's problem. All this nonsense about turning Britain into a intelect based ecconomy is not, ultimately workable, because we train people who bugger off because of the high taxes and poor services who take their knowledge abroad. Britian's long term secutity lies in belonging to a body that has sufficient critical mass to survive long lerm economic troughs and has the force of markets and arms to project its power, this is either the EU, and alliance with the US or the commonwealth - sadly, the commonwealth is a mess of squabling self serving dictatorships and America is not much better.

I've only just found this thread, but praetonia, check out the Bruges Group.

I read a lot of their stuff, and I don't know if its already been mentioned, but I think you'll like it.

It's very often said that we need the EU because small nations can't survive, we need to be part of a big bloc. So where's the evidence? The 3 richest countries in Europe at present are Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. None of which are in the EU.

And the EU wasn't created to stop wars in Europe. I think the poster is confusing it with NATO.

Ok, before you attack me for being an evil, nasty, baby-killing BNP fascist nutter, please hear me out. My question is a genuine appeal for reasoning from any staunch pro-EUians out there, because until recently I was pro-EU but more and more am failing to see the point in it for us. This is my basic anti-EU argument:

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.
- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.
- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.
- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.
- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.
- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.
- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.


simple awnser: Britain should not be part of the EU. unlike most of the other nations, however, Britain has a has a fall back position: the commonwelth. at one point almost all of those countrys traded almost exclusively with britain and each other. then britain started impossieng rediculous tarrifs and the like and joined the EU [or whatever it was called when it was only an economic entity] forceing most of it's former empire to find other markets.

it occurs to me that, done right, it might even still be possible [just barely.. pre-ww2 would have been a better time to set this in motion] to re-establish the Empire, in effect. you'd have to base it around the monarch, not the nation, though. most memebers of the commonwelth still acknowledge the queen as head of state, if i'm remembering rightly, you see.

slightly off topic, i guess. but the point was Britain doesn't need the EU. it should never have JOINED the EU. heck, what small amount of info we get about the EU here would indicate that even france and germany would be better off without the EU. Finland certianly would be, like Britain, it's being drained and getting little or nothing in return.

yeah. that's all i got for the moment.

Finland certianly would be, like Britain, it's being drained and getting little or nothing in return.
Germany and Sweden are the biggest net payers. Britain is waaaay behind, thanks to the rebate (which was in power only because Britain was in economic trouble back in the day - and that was overcome in a large part thanks to the EU).

And what you're getting in return are places like Ireland, where thanks to the EU, a whole new country has been created.

That is quite a simple question: it should not.

The EU isnt fundamentally bad but it is feckless as far as enforcing its laws go.

France was ordered to pay the UK a fine after boycotting british beef during the BSE scare - they still haven't paid. To most people the mechanism of paying a fine would seem simple - YOU PAY IT ITS THE LAW, however the wonderful people of the EU have made a miriad of clauses and loopholes in various laws which france can pass through every time its persued. I'm assuming at some point they'll run out of excuses but I imagine I'll be retired by the time that happens. The point was raised eariler about france (again, hehe) being overtly protectionist (ie merging private companies with state ones to avoid foriegn take over), Chiraq even came out and said he'd block any move from a US firm to by Danone - which is against EU Free trade laws but he said it anyway. You don't need tabloids to twist that - its a blatant statement of what we all know anyway which is that france will not give up its protectionist mantra.

Its not an opinion that Britain should be run by the British, its the law. The UN protects nations soverignty. The UK can only be reasonably expected to live up to what it signs up for and when we joined the EEC we did not envisage what the EU is now. The UK pushed for reform, we offered a trade - the rebate for CAP reform, but it was resisted. Numerous polls show that people across the EU increasingly do not want europe to merge into the federal states of.

Angermanland - Britain was forced to concede preferential trade with the Commonwealth when we signed up to the new world order for trade in 1944 at Bretton Woods. The Americans wanted a move towards free trade and protectionism didn't fit into that plan. It lingered on for ages (i can't remember quite how long atm, into the 60's at least I believe) but it's significance has dwindled to nothingness- I seriously doubt it could be revived.

Bogmarsh- you are right that there is no get out clause. You are wrong that it's life-membership because there is also nothing binding us to the EU beyond treaties and laws signed and passed by our own governments. These can be annulled like any other. You're talking like it would be unconstitutional to leave or something...

Also consider the benefits of bringing Spain and Italy out of the backwater and the increased trade there. We do pay a lot, and that the richest European nations are not in the EU is probably skewed because they have tiny populations (oh, and Swiss banking...) However- the EU is doomed to failure, not least because people don't simply don't believe in it. The positives need to be set forwards with more clarity and honesty, the shortcomings reviewed and adressed. But this seems less likely than Hell freezing over...

in no way should britian stay in the eu cause they won't benifit from doing so

they are better off to keep sucking up to u.s.a

[QUOTE='[NS]Pevans']Angermanland - Britain was forced to concede preferential trade with the Commonwealth when we signed up to the new world order for trade in 1944 at Bretton Woods. The Americans wanted a move towards free trade and protectionism didn't fit into that plan. It lingered on for ages (i can't remember quite how long atm, into the 60's at least I believe) but it's significance has dwindled to nothingness- I seriously doubt it could be revived.


one has to wonder about this.. the US is pretty protectionist it's self, really.

i have no idea if it could be revived or not, but if it were... china would take a bullet too. they import a lot of stuff from NZ and Australia, apparantly? food and the like. the british would proibly pay more, if they took the stuff at all.

meh.. i dream of past glory.

at any rate, the EU is.... not bennificial to anyone much, so far as i can see.

though i'll admit, being on the other side of the world may skew my perceptions [doesn't stop us knowing more about what's going on in the USA than US citizens do half the time though]

Ok, before you attack me for being an evil, nasty, baby-killing BNP fascist nutter, please hear me out. My question is a genuine appeal for reasoning from any staunch pro-EUians out there, because until recently I was pro-EU but more and more am failing to see the point in it for us. This is my basic anti-EU argument:

- We pay a massive amount of money to the EU and get little money in return.
- There is a theoretical free market but France and the other protectionist states in Europe (ie. all the major states except Britain) just ignore that whenever it suits them.
- The EU is barely democratic, with most decisions being taken by the council of ministers, not the Parliament, in which MEPs hardly ever speak in any case.
- The EU is dominated by people (socialists) who fundamentally do not agree with how we run out nation and economy.
- The EU comes out with an awful lot drivel that no one here really supports, such as ridiculous health and safety legislation and socialist laws that mean people aren't allowed to be employed for over X hours per week, even if they want to be.
- The EU's power seems to be encroaching upon our own government's.
- We can get all the benefits of the Common Market with none of the regulation by joining the European Free Trade Area anyway.
- EU courts override our courts - essentially Britain no longer has the final say on what it wants its laws to be.
- The EU has given our fishing territories and oil reserves to other EU states.

In a way I want to believe in the EU, mostly because I doubt we'll be pulling out any time soon and I don't like to think that Britain has made a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly, but really I don't see any answer to the above.

EU? Socialist? What planet are you living on?

EU Integration should go further, not less. In fact, I'd welcome a United States of Europe. The current EU is undemocratic, centralised, and has little respect for its member states. A very decentralised federal republic would be far better than what we have now, governed by real constitutional law and, if democratic enough, far more responsible to the people of Europe.

A real written constitution (not the dull crap that was proposed) would seperate and limit what Brussels could legislate on, not letting them to get away with anything they want, unlike the current British and European governments are.

Europe is the future for the UK, although the Commonwealth will always be equally important.

Actually, the EU is mostly socialist because, hilariously, the right-wing don't want to work together as they're mostly nationalists.

I support the EU as it helps our reputation in Europe, helps our farmers to make money, makes travel easy and working in Europe very simple.

The USA is an untrustworthy ally, we're better of sticking the proverbial finger up at them and keeping to the EU.

Britain should remain in the EU for trade/defensive/influence reasons but it should be on economic terms, not something that makes us more and more under the political influence of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels

Actually, the EU is mostly socialist because, hilariously, the right-wing don't want to work together as they're mostly nationalists.

Just 'working together' isn't socialist. Economically, the EU is very right-wing, supporting privatisation and deregulation (i.e. giving corporations more freedom) in the economy. It's in one of the treaties to support a "competative, market economy" somewhere, i'm sure of it.

Just 'working together' isn't socialist. Economically, the EU is very right-wing, supporting privatisation and deregulation (i.e. giving corporations more freedom) in the economy. It's in one of the treaties to support a "competative, market economy" somewhere, i'm sure of it.

Most of the MEPs are from socialist partes. It might be economically liberal, but it's also quite socially liberal too.

Most of the MEPs are from socialist partes. It might be economically liberal, but it's also quite socially liberal too.Incorrect. The Conservatives still have a majority in the EP.

Hmmm... I thought that the socialists had the majority... ah well...

they're all politicians and thus, by deffinition, incompitant anyway.

what does it matter if they're socialist or otherwise? they'll still stuff it up. it's what they do for a liveing.

of course, the same can be said of most individual nations too. hehe.

Incorrect. The Conservatives still have a majority in the EP.
Indeed. Also, to make another point. In the EU, some Conservative parties (as well as some so-called liberal ones) favour both a liberal economy and a liberal society, sort of in the style of libertarianism.

EU? Socialist? What planet are you living on?

EU Integration should go further, not less. In fact, I'd welcome a United States of Europe. The current EU is undemocratic, centralised, and has little respect for its member states. A very decentralised federal republic would be far better than what we have now, governed by real constitutional law and, if democratic enough, far more responsible to the people of Europe.

A real written constitution (not the dull crap that was proposed) would seperate and limit what Brussels could legislate on, not letting them to get away with anything they want, unlike the current British and European governments are.

Europe is the future for the UK, although the Commonwealth will always be equally important.
I agree with all you said. This sounds more similar to the Swiss Confederate model, something I would love for the EU.

Those who think the EU is socialist are deluded. It is simply both economically and socially liberal. Hopefully it will get its act right and start reforming.

Indeed. Also, to make another point. In the EU, some Conservative parties (as well as some so-called liberal ones) favour both a liberal economy and a liberal society, sort of in the style of libertarianism.

how are they still technically conservatives if they favour a liberal society?

how are they still technically conservatives if they favour a liberal society?
Conservative economic policies (ie a looser grip on the economy, more commonly called liberal economic policies). They also still have a moral axis they revolve around, they simply believe it is not the job of the state to interfere with people's lives. So they do have Conservative elements. Many of the European Christian parties come in this form. Libertarianism is often a branch of liberal conservatism.