Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why are the British so anti Europe?
Options
Comments
-
I often wonder whether any of what are cited as 'reasons' are really reasons. They often seem more like justifications after the fact of dislike.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I often wonder whether any of what are cited as 'reasons' are really reasons. They often seem more like justifications after the fact of dislike.
cordially,
Scofflaw
Would these 'justifications after the fact of dislike' have been influenced by what happened after the Danish vote in 1992, and the Irish vote in 2008, which were deemed unacceptable by Brussels?
Would the alleged British 'anti-European' sentiment be influenced by such manoeuverings?
I seek merely information.
sardonically,
porsche9590 -
Ya about that... This significant economy's seventh biggest trading partner is Ireland a country of what about 4 - 4.5 million people... Not confidence inspiring.
And as for market access that cuts both ways, although I'd expect a market of say 400m people to hold sway and I can't think of anything that the EU just gota have from the UK.
The Square Mile is by a large factor, bigger than the EU's second largest financial centre, Frankfurt. If anything, the gap has widened in recent years. So, that's one reason the EU might prefer to 'retain' Britain within it's axis.
I'm not sure why we're talking about markets though. Recent centralising tendencies in Europe have had nothing go to do with markets and trade.In my opinion this is the thing the UK does not get - economics is only one aspect of the EU for the other members and it is not The Aspect as it is in the UK. I find it hard to see how DC can expect to bridge the gap as the expectations are so different.
I would agree that there is an enormous expectations gap, but I would not assign blame to the British electorate, or even to its dread media and notoriously eurosceptic media, Daily Mail etc.
Why has the Westminister establishment not given any referendums to the electorate on all the powers they've ceded to Europe over the years?0 -
The fundamental EU rules are sound. There will be no alteration in the founding principles. Cosmetic changes may be agreed, but nothing that's particularly outside of the gift of national authorities at present (any member state can tighten up its welfare or immigration rules if it likes). Indeed the solutions to immigration problems lie in significant part in stabilising the economies of the countries people are leaving. Which will require net aid spend by richer countries. More deep pockets for the wealthier countries, in return for a bit more global, or at least regional, stability.Fratton Fred wrote: »In theory, yes, but the reality is somewhat different.
I too hope the UK sees sense and does not leave the eu, but the whole set up needs a drastic review.
The 'reality' is very few outside the 'Little Englander' crew in the UK want a fundamental change in the EU, either in terms of national retrenchment or federalism. If there is any existential angst, it's mostly in England. That's not enough of a critical mass to matter at 'constitutional' level.0 -
The 'reality' is very few outside the 'Little Englander' crew in the UK want a fundamental change in the EU, either in terms of national retrenchment or federalism. If there is any existential angst, it's mostly in England. That's not enough of a critical mass to matter at 'constitutional' level.
It's funny, terms like little Englander are used fairly liberally on Boards to portray the xenophobic English, but in reality, it just portrays the poster as xenophobic.
The changes most of these "little Englanders" would like, aren't too different to the changes Sinn Fein would like. Would they be "little Irishers" ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Circular, defensive argument. Are you *denying* there are 'xenophobic English'? And denying why using the term 'little Englander' might be appropriate? There's xenophobia in every society, not to mention more modest hostilities to 'others'. Fair characterisations are perfectly legitimate.Fratton Fred wrote: »It's funny, terms like little Englander are used fairly liberally on Boards to portray the xenophobic English, but in reality, it just portrays the poster as xenophobic.
The changes most of these "little Englanders" would like, aren't too different to the changes Sinn Fein would like. Would they be "little Irishers" ?
As concerns this thread, the degree of xenophobia in 'UK'IP is there for all to see, no matter how many blimps and buffoons they try to eject. It exists alongside a wider, although by no means universal, sneering attitude towards other cultures, particularly towards Britain's historical competitors, Germany and France. A sneering attitude frequently under cover of so-called humour. One only has to read the London press to get a sense of the degrees of xenophobia and disrespect for other countries and cultures at large among certain elements.
As for Sinn Fein, you're more than welcome to identify the 'changes' they 'would like' insofar as they are relevant to this thread. However, if you want a discussion on why SF might be 'so anti Europe', you're more than welcome to set up an appropriate thread, and discuss the merits of 'little Irishness' there.0 -
The thing is the British are not as stupid as you guys think, we mostly understand that the remaining in the EU would be best for us all, but the original ideals of a free trade market are being pushed aside for the idea of a massively bloated superstate payed for by the few at the top, it's not sustainable. Our NHS cannot be open to all the EU, we can't continue to see wage deflation caused by mass immigration. The simple fact is companies profits and executive bonuses are growing faster than any time in history because there is no longer a need to up the compensation for filling a job when there are over 400m people to chose from with vastly differing economies. This is not little Englander xenophobic nonsense, this is a man worrying about what the UK that I and my for fathers built will offer my children!
The simple fact is the EU is evolving past what it should be, and that's fine but don't pretend the UK is not being pushed out, being faced with impossible options, to forget our own unemployed youth to the benefit of other countries like Romania etc youth. They even tried to push through a financial tax that would have hurt London and the British recovery, now we are told due to making more and harsher cuts than France etc we should pay billions to them!!!
now I will be a bit xenophobic, just to dispel this notion that the UK will suffer more on divorce, we won't, it will be the end of the EU, while the Germans will still want to sell us BMW's and the French will still want to trade with us just like every other EU state that sells us more than we buy from them the EU will lose a lot, The U.K is the single most important player in the EU, the second most geostrategic important country in the world, overnight every country in the EU would have to spend a few more % of GDP on their military to make up the shortfall, overnight the EU would lose what will soon be it's second strongest economy and strongest military power. no most the EU being the biggest economy in the world. overnight Germany, France, Italy and Spain who are all already in recession wild see the largest fall in their markets overnight, will Germany pick up the slack when their economy is collapsing? you will start seeing the rise of anti EU party's amongst the larger economies, of course the economic drains like ireland etc will be pro EU.
The UK will save over €60m a day, we will still trade with the EU, it's not like the Germans, who will be in recession and basically proping up the rest of the sick man EU will refuse to sell us BMW'S . How will the UK suffer?0 -
Circular, defensive argument. Are you *denying* there are 'xenophobic English'? And denying why using the term 'little Englander' might be appropriate? There's xenophobia in every society, not to mention more modest hostilities to 'others'. Fair characterisations are perfectly legitimate.
As concerns this thread, the degree of xenophobia[/u] in 'UK'IP is there for all to see, no matter how many blimps and buffoons they try to eject. It exists alongside a wider, although by no means universal, sneering attitude towards other cultures, particularly towards Britain's historical competitors, Germany and France. A sneering attitude frequently under cover of so-called humour. One only has to read the London press to get a sense of the degrees of xenophobia and disrespect for other countries and cultures at large among certain elements.
As for Sinn Fein, you're more than welcome to identify the 'changes' they 'would like' insofar as they are relevant to this thread. However, if you want a discussion on why SF might be 'so anti Europe', you're more than welcome to set up an appropriate thread, and discuss the merits of 'little Irishness' there.
Of course there is xenophobia in every country, from the ukip to the FN to the Dublin taxi driver with green and orange lights.
Demanding change to the eu, despite what you might like to think, isn't based purely on xenophobia, it is more a case of people simply wanting to look after their own country's interests before others. That may not be well received in the countries that benefit from the generous hand outs from the eu, but it can't go on forever.
Why should someone in Liverpool be paying for hand outs to a farmer in leitrim or lille?
Why should workers in Durham or Dusseldorf pay to support the bloated salaries of pampered politicians in Dublin?0 -
porsche959 wrote: »Would these 'justifications after the fact of dislike' have been influenced by what happened after the Danish vote in 1992, and the Irish vote in 2008, which were deemed unacceptable by Brussels?
Would the alleged British 'anti-European' sentiment be influenced by such manoeuvrings?
What happened that is of issue to you? I won't speak for the Danish vote but I seem to recall we initially voted no for reasons that were, almost entirely, not in the treaty. So I for one had no issue voting again on the actual issues rather that some made up scaremongering.porsche959 wrote: »The Square Mile is by a large factor, bigger than the EU's second largest financial centre, Frankfurt. If anything, the gap has widened in recent years. So, that's one reason the EU might prefer to 'retain' Britain within it's axis.
What happens if their access to 430+ million people is curtailed? You think the money will stay in Britain? I don't.porsche959 wrote: »I would agree that there is an enormous expectations gap, but I would not assign blame to the British electorate, or even to its dread media and notoriously eurosceptic media, Daily Mail etc.
Why has the Westminister establishment not given any referendums to the electorate on all the powers they've ceded to Europe over the years?
Do you really think after what we've seen here that giving complex treaties to the ordinary joe soap is a good idea? They did a survey after the first Lisbon vote here and as I said above it showed that most concerns were not even in the treaty. It basically allows small fringe groups to scaremonger the populous into making poor decisions.0 -
What happens if their access to 430+ million people is curtailed? You think the money will stay in Britain? I don't.
Why would it stop trade? will these heavily in debt and in recession countries turn our money away? will the Germans watch BMW lose there third biggest market (largest EU Market)? Mabey the UK, France, Italy and Germany should form their own free trade group? Surely your not going to tell me the EU who will be close to collapse will stop trade with the UK? cut if their nose to spite their face, I think not.0 -
Advertisement
-
Speed isn't an issue, but English would help. German or Italian either would work for me.Fratton Fred wrote: »Ok, I'll try writing slower.
You're presenting a black and white choice as if these are the only two options, which is clearly nonsense, so I'd have to say neither.Would you prefer countries raising objections to eu treaties (and being annoyingly troublesome) or signing up to a treaty and blatantly ignoring it?
As to Britain's role in 'raising objections', that is not what the UK has done historically. As I already pointed out, more than once in this thread, the UK has never had the same interest in the European project as other members. It avoided it at first. It tried to set up a trade-only alternative, that never really got off the ground. Then it left that, joined the EU and spent the next forty years trying to turn it into that failed trade-only alternative, and oddly enough failed, because it has been largely the only nation that wanted that.
Britain's 'objections' have basically been that she feels the EU should be EFTA, and it has been consistently been overruled because that's not what the EU was set up to be and not what the other members want. So the UK's history of 'raising objections' has been well understood for a long time, to the point that it has been repeatedly satirized. Not exactly the principled 'raising objections' you would have us believe.
How do you calculate that? The thing about simplistic comparisons like who receives or contributes to the EU budget tend to ignore the larger picture, such as how much those contributors benefit from the markets they have access to.Fratton Fred wrote: »Easy to say when you are taker, not the giver.
This can lead to the false calculation that because one state pays out, say, €10Bn more than it receives it's on a loser. Naturally it is, until you also take into account the €20Bn it makes from being able to access those markets (that have improved spending power due to investment) that are receiving.
Yes. Some states are more cool on the idea. Some less. But overall, the level of Eurosceptism in the rest of Europe is a fraction of what it is and has been in Britain and most seek reform rather than any departure from the bloc.Fratton Fred wrote: »Do they though?
So the brand of eurosceptism we see in the UK is largely a British thing. Those other European eurosceptics who would seek to leave the EU tend to be fringe far-left or right groups with little support, while any with any real support branded as eurosceptics have no intention of breaking away.
Unfortunately, in all the years of discussing this issue, the core motivation of pretty much any eurosceptic I've conversed with has been a mixture of nationalism and xenophobia. Without exception.I often wonder whether any of what are cited as 'reasons' are really reasons. They often seem more like justifications after the fact of dislike.
It's often very difficult to demonstrate this; such is the armory of 'reasonable sounding' arguments you'll get and the tendency to just regurgitate them without actually engaging in rebuttals, other times they're not even aware of this, but on more than one occasion I'm managed to get an admission that for them the EU won't work because "the [INSERT FOREIGNER] are not like us".
This is not to say that the EU is not riddled with problems, desperately in need of reform, but it's not black or white and to suggest that the EU has problems, ergo we should leave is idiotic and all too often simply a smoke screen for those who would leave because of purely nationalist and xenophobic reasons.0 -
But why pay €10 billion to sell someone €20 billion when you buy €30 billion from them? will the EU cut of their nose? will the Germans watch BMW plants close? why do you think trade would stop when it would benefit no one?The Corinthian wrote: »
How do you calculate that? The thing about simplistic comparisons like who receives or contributes to the EU budget tend to ignore the larger picture, such as how much those contributors benefit from the markets they have access to.
This can lead to the false calculation that because one state pays out, say, €10Bn more than it receives it's on a loser. Naturally it is, until you also take into account the €20Bn it makes from being able to access those markets (that have improved spending power due to investment) that are receiving.0 -
Is Ireland still a net recipient? That's nuts.0
-
I wouldn't be so sanguine about the EU surviving as some here. The political classes in Europe are under severe domestic threat nationally from anti-EU and nationalist forces.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Speed isn't an issue, but English would help. German or Italian either would work for me.
You're presenting a black and white choice as if these are the only two options, which is clearly nonsense, so I'd have to say neither.
As to Britain's role in 'raising objections', that is not what the UK has done historically. As I already pointed out, more than once in this thread, the UK has never had the same interest in the European project as other members. It avoided it at first. It tried to set up a trade-only alternative, that never really got off the ground. Then it left that, joined the EU and spent the next forty years trying to turn it into that failed trade-only alternative, and oddly enough failed, because it has been largely the only nation that wanted that.
Britain's 'objections' have basically been that she feels the EU should be EFTA, and it has been consistently been overruled because that's not what the EU was set up to be and not what the other members want. So the UK's history of 'raising objections' has been well understood for a long time, to the point that it has been repeatedly satirized. Not exactly the principled 'raising objections' you would have us believe.
How do you calculate that? The thing about simplistic comparisons like who receives or contributes to the EU budget tend to ignore the larger picture, such as how much those contributors benefit from the markets they have access to.
This can lead to the false calculation that because one state pays out, say, €10Bn more than it receives it's on a loser. Naturally it is, until you also take into account the €20Bn it makes from being able to access those markets (that have improved spending power due to investment) that are receiving.
Yes. Some states are more cool on the idea. Some less. But overall, the level of Eurosceptism in the rest of Europe is a fraction of what it is and has been in Britain and most seek reform rather than any departure from the bloc.
So the brand of eurosceptism we see in the UK is largely a British thing. Those other European eurosceptics who would seek to leave the EU tend to be fringe far-left or right groups with little support, while any with any real support branded as eurosceptics have no intention of breaking away.
Unfortunately, in all the years of discussing this issue, the core motivation of pretty much any eurosceptic I've conversed with has been a mixture of nationalism and xenophobia. Without exception.
It's often very difficult to demonstrate this; such is the armory of 'reasonable sounding' arguments you'll get and the tendency to just regurgitate them without actually engaging in rebuttals, other times they're not even aware of this, but on more than one occasion I'm managed to get an admission that for them the EU won't work because "the [INSERT FOREIGNER] are not like us".
This is not to say that the EU is not riddled with problems, desperately in need of reform, but it's not black or white and to suggest that the EU has problems, ergo we should leave is idiotic and all too often simply a smoke screen for those who would leave because of purely nationalist and xenophobic reasons.
That is just lazy generalisation, pretty much from start to finish.
Question the eu and you're a xenophobic little Englander. What about people who would just like to see reform in the way it operates? Some accountability in the massive levels of waste in the European parliament? Why does the entire parliament have to hold twelve four day sessions in Strasbourg every year? The Strasbourg buildings cost a small fortune to maintain, but serve no practical purpose.
Why, in the 21st century, are we paying farmers subsidies? Are we expecting another famine?
Ok, let's have some examples from you on contributions from the smaller economies in the eu.
What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland? Sure, help the smaller economies grow so they can start to contribute to the eu and give back what they receive, but when will that be? Where is the cast iron commitment from these countries? Where is the commitment that yes, we have taken billions from the eu, spent it wisely and have used it to grow our economies?0 -
-
Frank Lee Midere wrote: »Is Ireland still a net recipient? That's nuts.
No it isn't : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#Net_contributors_and_recipients0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland? Sure, help the smaller economies grow so they can start to contribute to the eu and give back what they receive, but when will that be? Where is the cast iron commitment from these countries? Where is the commitment that yes, we have taken billions from the eu, spent it wisely and have used it to grow our economies?
Ireland contributed €156 million in 2009. Not to mention billions in interest on bailout loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#Net_contributors_and_recipients0 -
This is a good reason IMHO. Increasing the size of GDP to take the black economy "into account" and then taxing on it? By definition you can't tax the black economy nor accurately estimate it's size !!!
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/brussels-demands-budget-surcharge-from-the-uk-1.19758080 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »That is just lazy generalisation, pretty much from start to finish.
Question the eu and you're a xenophobic little Englander. What about people who would just like to see reform in the way it operates? Some accountability in the massive levels of waste in the European parliament? Why does the entire parliament have to hold twelve four day sessions in Strasbourg every year? The Strasbourg buildings cost a small fortune to maintain, but serve no practical purpose.
Why, in the 21st century, are we paying farmers subsidies? Are we expecting another famine?
Ok, let's have some examples from you on contributions from the smaller economies in the eu.
What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland? Sure, help the smaller economies grow so they can start to contribute to the eu and give back what they receive, but when will that be? Where is the cast iron commitment from these countries? Where is the commitment that yes, we have taken billions from the eu, spent it wisely and have used it to grow our economies?
Despite me correcting the Ireland point, I actually agree with everything else you say. [EDIT] I'd say the Strasbourg buildings cost a large fortune : The expenses for British MEP's alone cost £150m a year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9174617/Europe-votes-to-end-parliaments-Travelling-Circus.html. They are doing away with it apparently though.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »You're not buying €30 billion from them though.
But we are buying more than we sell plus paying for the honour! square that circle.0 -
professore wrote: »Ireland contributed €156 million in 2009. Not to mention billions in interest on bailout loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#Net_contributors_and_recipients
http://m.eu2013.ie/ireland-and-the-presidency/abouttheeu/theeuexplained/howtheeuisfinanced/
I think the "billions" in interest is a red herring as well.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »http://m.eu2013.ie/ireland-and-the-presidency/abouttheeu/theeuexplained/howtheeuisfinanced/
I think the "billions" in interest is a red herring as well.
As per that link...
"Ireland’s contribution in 2011 was €1.35bn. Ireland is a net recipient of EU funding: it receives more than it contributes."0 -
We pay for our own politicians with our own hard earned, thank you very much.Fratton Fred wrote: »Of course there is xenophobia in every country, from the ukip to the FN to the Dublin taxi driver with green and orange lights.
Demanding change to the eu, despite what you might like to think, isn't based purely on xenophobia, it is more a case of people simply wanting to look after their own country's interests before others. That may not be well received in the countries that benefit from the generous hand outs from the eu, but it can't go on forever.
Why should someone in Liverpool be paying for hand outs to a farmer in leitrim or lille?
Why should workers in Durham or Dusseldorf pay to support the bloated salaries of pampered politicians in Dublin?
Almost all countries in the EU are looking out for their own interests. Many countries have joined the EU in recent decades precisely to further their own interests.
The UK is practically the only country which makes such a big deal about trying to turn its relationship with the EU into a simple-headed zero sum game. But regardless of the efforts of your Europhobe press and the xenophobic 'UK'IP, I still suspect the UK electorate will vote to remain in the EU. Because, on balance, I expect they'll come to the conclusion it's in their country's interests.0 -
professore wrote: »
Yes it is (a net recepient)
The stats you're quoting are tail end of the Celtic tiger.
http://www.publicpolicy.ie/wp-content/uploads/140514b-page-001.jpg
http://www.publicpolicy.ie/eu-budget-ireland/
It's quite likely it'll be a net contributer again soon and some people make a quite reasonable argument that our fish stocks are completely undervalued in that too (as are other large coastal countries like France, all the Nordic members etc and also the UK.)0 -
Nobody here is arguing that the British are stupid. On the positive side, the British have a long history of engagement with the world, and have given much in terms of creativity, culture and industry. But so have others. If anything is 'stupid', I'm afraid it's your rose-tinted view of the UK's place in the world, and your Thatcherite contention that the EU is a superstate, let alone a bloated one.The thing is the British are not as stupid as you guys think, we mostly understand that the remaining in the EU would be best for us all, but the original ideals of a free trade market are being pushed aside for the idea of a massively bloated superstate payed for by the few at the top, it's not sustainable. Our NHS cannot be open to all the EU, we can't continue to see wage deflation caused by mass immigration. The simple fact is companies profits and executive bonuses are growing faster than any time in history because there is no longer a need to up the compensation for filling a job when there are over 400m people to chose from with vastly differing economies. This is not little Englander xenophobic nonsense, this is a man worrying about what the UK that I and my for fathers built will offer my children!
The simple fact is the EU is evolving past what it should be, and that's fine but don't pretend the UK is not being pushed out, being faced with impossible options, to forget our own unemployed youth to the benefit of other countries like Romania etc youth. They even tried to push through a financial tax that would have hurt London and the British recovery, now we are told due to making more and harsher cuts than France etc we should pay billions to them!!!
now I will be a bit xenophobic, just to dispel this notion that the UK will suffer more on divorce, we won't, it will be the end of the EU, while the Germans will still want to sell us BMW's and the French will still want to trade with us just like every other EU state that sells us more than we buy from them the EU will lose a lot, The U.K is the single most important player in the EU, the second most geostrategic important country in the world, overnight every country in the EU would have to spend a few more % of GDP on their military to make up the shortfall, overnight the EU would lose what will soon be it's second strongest economy and strongest military power. no most the EU being the biggest economy in the world. overnight Germany, France, Italy and Spain who are all already in recession wild see the largest fall in their markets overnight, will Germany pick up the slack when their economy is collapsing? you will start seeing the rise of anti EU party's amongst the larger economies, of course the economic drains like ireland etc will be pro EU.
The UK will save over €60m a day, we will still trade with the EU, it's not like the Germans, who will be in recession and basically proping up the rest of the sick man EU will refuse to sell us BMW'S . How will the UK suffer?
In the circumstances, I'm perfectly happy to accept your admission to being 'a bit xenophobic'. It's precisely that kind of xenophobia which has caused Britain to overreach itself in recent decades, politically and economically (don't take QE-based growth to be sustainable growth).
On 'divorce', I don't think myself the UK will leave the EU. Like most Europeans, the Brits are sensible, moderate people. Your average voter will take a look at the play school 'rationales' of xenophobes and out-and-out racists, and decide it makes more sense to do business within the EU. Were the UK to leave, it would be a great shame, but the rest of Europe would move on to their own order of business.0 -
Funny you bring up 'lazy generalisation'. That's your post from xenophobic beginning to negative end.Fratton Fred wrote: »That is just lazy generalisation, pretty much from start to finish.
Question the eu and you're a xenophobic little Englander. What about people who would just like to see reform in the way it operates? Some accountability in the massive levels of waste in the European parliament? Why does the entire parliament have to hold twelve four day sessions in Strasbourg every year? The Strasbourg buildings cost a small fortune to maintain, but serve no practical purpose.
Why, in the 21st century, are we paying farmers subsidies? Are we expecting another famine?
Ok, let's have some examples from you on contributions from the smaller economies in the eu.
What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland? Sure, help the smaller economies grow so they can start to contribute to the eu and give back what they receive, but when will that be? Where is the cast iron commitment from these countries? Where is the commitment that yes, we have taken billions from the eu, spent it wisely and have used it to grow our economies?
It's not a little strange why criticisms of the EU on this forum are almost universally at the extreme end of the spectrum, using similar destructive, smart-alec terminology. I've no doubt myself that the preponderance of anti-EU posters on threads like these are quite simply UKIP clones attempting to spread their xenophobic, negative agenda. Well, good luck to them. Destructive criticism has a limited appeal. Even in England, I'd hazard UKIP's narrow, populist message will play itself out. It'll gain no traction here, even less than it's spectacular failure in Scotland.0 -
Two very long posts, yet other than attacking the posters, no actual comment on the points raised.
Bravo sir.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Two very long posts, yet other than attacking the posters, no actual comment on the points raised.
Bravo sir.
exactly, still waiting for a sensible explanation of how we will suffer if divorced from the EU?
Benefits to the U.K.
1. save €10 billion per year in direct payments alone
2. limit free moment of EU workers and reduce our own youth employment.
3. no more Health tourism over burdening the NHS
4. No more benefit tourism and paying child benefit to minimum wage workers to send back to there native country where the children live.
5. Bring an end to wage deflation due to the ridiculous notion that countries with vastly differing economies can all operate as a single entity. Madness.
6. No more rules and fines making us non competitive compared to the BRIKS nations, no more dumping good fish to make stupid daily quotas instead of flexibility to keep the fish and take the next day of! cut carbon taxes etc
7. Bring back the 115000 fishing jobs lost to our costal towns
etc etc etc
Negatives? ???
1. no access to EU markets.
Laughable really, we have a massive trade deficit with the EU. -"The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2009 there was a trade deficit of £34.9bn; in 2011, it was nearly £50bn. In the very worst case scenario if trade stopped with the EU, the UK would lost 3 million jobs which are dependent on trade with the EU. The EU however, would lost 4 millions jobs, so it would be nonsensical for them not to trade with their biggest customer.
-Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU."
2. BRITAIN WILL BE EXCLUDED FROM TRADE WITH THE EU BY TARIFF BARRIERS
-The EU has free trade agreements with 53 countries to overcome such tariffs, and is negotiating a further 74 such agreements.
-EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway. In 2009 UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports. This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls.
How about instead of calling me a xenophobic racist you deal with the points at hand?0 -
Advertisement
-
and what about the negatives of a Brit exit for the EU?
1. lose there second largest economy (soon to be)
2. lose the most strategically important partner and see the security of the EU massively diminished overnight.
3. lose the fastest growing economy of the important economies.
4. lose the highest contributer to eu funds per capita forcing Germany to pick up the slack and fuel the conversation of what's actually in it for them at this point?
5. potential cash the EU markets overnight.
6. lose the financial capital of the world.0
Advertisement