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
-
If you want meaningful discussion, you're going to have to do better than raising crypto-racist straw men. For instance, what on earth does 'examples' of 'contributions from the smaller economies in the eu' mean? What kind of inane nonsense is that?Fratton Fred wrote: »Two very long posts, yet other than attacking the posters, no actual comment on the points raised.
Bravo sir.
What precisely does 'What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland?' mean?
I'm reminded by your contributions of that obnoxious little Englander, Nigel Farage's racist insult directed in the EP at Van Rompuy for not being from a proper country. Ah yes, Nigel Farage's UKIP represents the values of a superior race, doesn't he Fred. In somebody's dreams anyway.
If you want discussion, raise meaningful points, not wish lists of petty hates and trivial obsessions.0 -
May I remind you, you described *yourself* as being a bit xenophobic. If that's a hat you feel comfortable wearing, then good for you.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 -
'Lose' the financial capital of the world? Watch that one sink like a stone!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 -
fine rebuttals again mcdave! you seem angry?0
-
2. Many would argue that EU immigration has benefitted the UK economy.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
3 and 4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation within the EU.
5. Nonsense. EU countries don't operate as a single entity.
6 and 7. Sounds like a party political puff piece that. Regional unemployment is more down to the focus of the UK economy in the south east than the EU.
So, apart from your etc etc etc, it looks like your argument is down to saving net contributions to the EU. If you don't want to pay your way in the EU, and help develop the more disadvantaged or peripheral regions, good for you. I hope the UK electorate in general has more foresight than you have.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I think Britain Ireland and France should make their own Union, one where we all use the pound.0
-
If you want meaningful discussion, you're going to have to do better than raising crypto-racist straw men. For instance, what on earth does 'examples' of 'contributions from the smaller economies in the eu' mean? What kind of inane nonsense is that?
What precisely does 'What does Greece contribute? Or Ireland?' mean?
I'm reminded by your contributions of that obnoxious little Englander, Nigel Farage's racist insult directed in the EP at Van Rompuy for not being from a proper country. Ah yes, Nigel Farage's UKIP represents the values of a superior race, doesn't he Fred. In somebody's dreams anyway.
If you want discussion, raise meaningful points, not wish lists of petty hates and trivial obsessions.
Petty hates and trivial obsessions? Questioning why €56bn of the eu budget is given away as farm subsidies, which included for some reason a Bulgarian bank and the Portuguese water authority. Is that trivial?
Maybe you could explain why, in the 21st century is this going on? Why should companies, such as Kerry foods, or billionaire land owners receive millions a year in subsidies?
Maybe you could also explain the debacle with government buildings and the rules that mean the entire eu parliament has to pick up everything, MEP s, assistants, the army of interpreters and go to Strasbourg once a month?
Could you also explain how questioning this is xenophobic?0 -
2. Many would argue that EU immigration has benefitted the UK economy.
3 and 4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation within the EU.
5. Nonsense. EU countries don't operate as a single entity.
6 and 7. Sounds like a party political puff piece that. Regional unemployment is more down to the focus of the UK economy in the south east than the EU.
So, apart from your etc etc etc, it looks like your argument is down to saving net contributions to the EU. If you don't want to pay your way in the EU, and help develop the more disadvantaged or peripheral regions, good for you. I hope the UK electorate in general has more foresight than you have.
I don't think you have made a very good job with your rebuttals but I appreciate the effort instead of a post filled with nothing and insults!
just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?0 -
Raising legitimate questions is not xenophobic. Sneering at small EU countries, in the fashion you did, is both crypto-racist and really quite stupid.Fratton Fred wrote: »Petty hates and trivial obsessions? Questioning why €56bn of the eu budget is given away as farm subsidies, which included for some reason a Bulgarian bank and the Portuguese water authority. Is that trivial?
Maybe you could explain why, in the 21st century is this going on? Why should companies, such as Kerry foods, or billionaire land owners receive millions a year in subsidies?
Maybe you could also explain the debacle with government buildings and the rules that mean the entire eu parliament has to pick up everything, MEP s, assistants, the army of interpreters and go to Strasbourg once a month?
Could you also explain how questioning this is xenophobic?
CAP is a policy structure that was put in place at the behest of France, long before the UK joined the EEC. It's overall place in the EU is diminishing, although politically it will be hard to do away with. Reducing CAP to 'billionaires get millions' is a bit glib. But in that spirit, the UK can hand back all its CAP payments if you feel so strongly about it.
Strasbourg is a major inefficiency, but not one which strikes at the raison d'etre or value of the EU.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
This paragraph begs the question: if the UK has faired so poorly in a market where they have had unrestricted access, how can they expect to do better when access starts to be come restricted? Will their industry suddenly be come more dynamic, more competitive.....
And as for this idea of doing independent trade deals in Asia and so on, the problem there is that the UK cost structure is much higher than in Asia and the price of such agreements will be cheap goods flowing into the UK, resulting in job losses or poor working conditions since workers will have lost their protections under EU law.0 -
I don't think you made a very good job with your list of rent-a-phobie bolt-on gripes. They don't in the round really merit detailed rebuttal.I don't think you have made a very good job with your rebuttals but I appreciate the effort instead of a post filled with nothing and insults!
just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?
On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.0 -
This paragraph begs the question: if the UK has faired so poorly in a market where they have had unrestricted access, how can they expect to do better when access starts to be come restricted? Will their industry suddenly be come more dynamic, more competitive.....
And as for this idea of doing independent trade deals in Asia and so on, the problem there is that the UK cost structure is much higher than in Asia and the price of such agreements will be cheap goods flowing into the UK, resulting in job losses or poor working conditions since workers will have lost their protections under EU law.
But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.
still waiting on someone pointing out a negative for the UK on exit?0 -
I don't think you made a very good job with your list of rent-a-phobie bolt-on gripes. They don't in the round really merit detailed rebuttal.
On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.
That's pretty laughable, I made a list of genuine points but you would rather ignore them and continue ranting about xenophobic, racist rent-a-phobie etc
what about the list of negatives for the EU on a Brit exit? no doubt more xenophobic flag waving little Englander nonsense?0 -
On health, EU law prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. You can't discriminate against EU nationals working and making social contributions. If you want EU workers out, that's fine as a POV. I don't think most British people would support that view. You can deal with non-EU workers and EU non-workers on a different basis. Those aspects are entirely at the gift of Westminster while being within the EU.
So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?0 -
just as an example, you say 3&4 can be dealt with by domestic legislation but do you understand any limitations put on non British EU citizens to access NHS and benefits would by EU law also have to apply to British citizens?
This true and rightly so, but not the full story! If done correctly and in accordance with EU rules on the free movement of people it would only apply to people who have established an economic existence in the UK.
An EU citizen is entitled to go to another EU country for up to three months to search for work, with a possible extension for another three months. During that time there is no automatic right to social assistance. After this period and having failed to find employment they can be required to return to their home country.
This the way it is done in other parts of Europe, so why not in the UK?
(DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC)0 -
As the UK has been doing that, more or less, for 40 years it would seem that yes, it is sustainable.So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?
I appreciate that the cost of the health service is growing. The growth is not really down to 400 million health tourists, though.0 -
But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.
If by "nothing will change" you mean that the UK will still have to contribute to the EU budget, still have to implement EU directives, and still have a trade deficit with the EU, then sure: nothing will change. Which makes you wonder why it's so important to some people to leave in the first place.
If, on the other hand, you mean that the UK will have access to a tariff-free market in the EU while conceding nothing whatsoever in return, then I have a number of fine river-crossing structures you may wish to invest in.0 -
I didn't mention 'xenophobia' or racism in the post you've just responded to. If you want to deal with those issues, please refer to the posts concerned. In the interests of accuracy and accountability.That's pretty laughable, I made a list of genuine points but you would rather ignore them and continue ranting about xenophobic, racist rent-a-phobie etc
what about the list of negatives for the EU on a Brit exit? no doubt more xenophobic flag waving little Englander nonsense?
I responded to your points. Most of them are fairly standard. There's no need for either of us to chase each other down rabbit holes on banal issues which we're not going to agree on.
As for negatives, I think it's pretty clear that probably all member states would prefer to see the UK remain in the EU. However, if the UK exercises its sovereign right to exit, the rest of the EU will move on. Maybe one or two countries might revise their positions on membership, or on joining, but the bulk will remain carrying on with business as normal. In the event of remaining or exit, your list of negatives will be purely academic.0 -
What 400 million people? You're not making sense.So what your saying is that if the NHS becomes non viable and overstretched by serving non Brits we should just end it for everyone and not prioritise British people? do you think it's sustainable to have a system where free health care to over 400m people as long as they come and take 16 hrs a week in tesco?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.
It isn't the highest contributor to the EU per capita due to the rebate Thatcher negotiated.
I think though there's definitely something wrong with how EU funds are getting distributed. There should be more money going back into underdeveloped parts of the UK, East Germany etc than their is.
The one thing I would say though is that EU funding to agriculture tends to distort the figures.
Ireland's for example has a huge agricultural sector relative to the size of the population. France too tends to get a lot of CAP funding for similar reasons.
So in some ways you're looking at poor countries (largely new members / crisis hit ones) and big agricultural producers.
No matter what way you carve it up though, it's going to upset somebody.
I always thought one way of funding it that would make more sense would be a % of VAT.
Say 1 or 2 % across the entire EU.0 -
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.
Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?
It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next domestic general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were to say, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party another chance?Do you really think after what we've seen here that giving complex treaties to the ordinary joe soap is a good idea?
Whatever way I read this, it sounds like ugly elitism.
Incidentally, you seem to assume that the UK would be denied access, overnight, to a 450 million market in the event of opting out of certain EU treaties. Unfortunately, this indicates that you yourself have a very poor understanding of the issues - perhaps you should deny yourself the right to vote in such 'complex treaties'.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.
There is a recognised system whereby the referendum commission have the remit and responsibility of informing the electorate of arguments for and against any proposed amendment. If you feel they did a poor job, take it up with them.0 -
There are two scenarios after an election: either a government is formed, or one isn't. If one isn't, then another election is held. Apparently, this is deeply undemocratic.porsche959 wrote: »Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?
It is being widely predicted that the Irish Labour party will get a pasting at the next general election. Let us suppose that this happens. How seriously would anyone be taken if they were, oh the electorate don't understand the issues, we will run the election again to give the Labour party a better chance?
The constitution gives the government the power to hold referendums. The government will hold a referendum on a new EU treaty because it has negotiated that treaty and, presumably (conspiracy theories about how successive governments' only motivation is to destroy the country aside) because it believes that the treaty is in the best interests of the country.
If the electorate rejects the treaty - particularly when polling after the fact indicates that most of those who rejected it did so for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty itself - then the government has the choice of either doing what it believes goes against the best interests of the state, and pandering to an under-informed electorate (and before you get on that high horse, if the electorate when questioned replies that it has voted for reasons that are irrelevant to the question it was asked, then "under-informed" isn't pejorative), or of trying harder to inform the electorate and asking the question again.
Not really. The average voter hasn't a clue how the EU works, never mind the nuances of an international treaty. You can call that elitism, but if you do, you probably don't quite understand what the word means.Whatever way I read this, it sounds like ugly elitism.
There are people who think they know better than doctors about the possible ill-effects of vaccines. I think the world would be a much better place if people who don't understand the first thing about immunology would just shut the **** up and let the doctors do their job. There are those who consider this an "elitist" view; I consider it pragmatic.
It's unlikely that the UK would be denied access to the EU market overnight if it withdrew its EU membership, for the simple reason that the UK would have to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU along the lines of those that Norway and Switzerland have.Incidentally, you seem to assume that the UK would be denied access, overnight, to a 450 million market in the event of opting out of certain EU treaties.
There are those who believe that the EU is so hopelessly dependent on the UK that it will immediately capitulate and grant the UK a no-strings-attached free trade deal in return for absolutely nothing whatsoever, but then, there are people who believe that vaccines cause autism. What people choose to believe is all too often at a distant remove from reality.
If you think the Referendum Commission was the only body telling people about the consequences of voting for or against the various EU treaties, I can only assume that you were living under a rock during the referendum campaigns.There is a recognised system whereby the referendum commission have the remit and responsibility of informing the electorate of arguments for and against any proposed amendment. If you feel they did a poor job, take it up with them.
If it suits you to pretend that many people didn't vote against the last EU treaty referendum for reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty itself, fine. Per the vaccine example I've cited a couple of times already, people will choose to believe whatever it suits them to believe, and all too often don't trouble with pesky things like facts.0 -
But the point is access won't become restricted, the EU is not going to cut of its nose to spite their face. Nothing will change.
still waiting on someone pointing out a negative for the UK on exit?
All non members of the EU face a common EU-wide set of tariffs and/or quotas to access EU markets except where they have concluded a free trade agreement with the EU.
That would obviously apply to the UK were it to leave - it is up to the UK though whether it wants to have restrictions on its trade with the rest of the EU or not.
The UK can "cut of its nose to spite their face" or not as it sees fit, no one is stopping such a decision - apart from the UK electorate that is.0 -
porsche959 wrote: »Can you not see what a dreadfully anti-democratic precedent this sets?
As the Supreme Court pointed out there is nothing "anti-democratic" about putting an issue to the demos whether it is on a first or subsequent occasion.
Seeking to restrict the right of the demos to change their mind on an issue though most certainly is, as it seeks to deny them the opportunity to change from one fixed political position0 -
I wonder do the Irish who voted no on the treaty the first time because they didn't believe it was in Ireland's best interest and foreseen the damage it would do to the economy and saddle generations of Irish with European debt feel glad that it was assumed the were too "uneducated" to form an opinion!
I wonder if the Irish had respected the will of the people on the first go would things be better for Ireland right now? really very hard to make the argument it would be any worse!
also iv yet to here anyone explain in a coherent manner why on a Brit exit Germany, who will already be suffering from recession and paying far more into the EU than now will not want to sell BMW'S to there third largest market, just close the factory's I suppose and watch the shares collapse? Yes yes Iceland, Norway blah blah but do they have a €50-€70 billion trade deficit with the EU?
Here is the way I see it, If I am in buisness and my main customer who I make billions of decides they are not going to pay the membership fee for access to my shop leaving be in a position were I can lose the fee but keep a very large customer or tell him to do one. What would happen?
I suppose the UK could remain in a EU military pact for access to a free market, that would save the EU a fortune, On a Brit exit the remaining EU countries would have to up spending in this area massively and that's a fact, or else that Bear would feel a lot more comfortable around the polish border!
one thing iv noticed from the pro EU camp is there is very little substance to their posts, sure there are long posts but it's just like reading of a vague sheet and avoiding any recognition of points made, strange. Do people know the EU has a massive budget for online viral promotion of the EU? Seriously, people paid to go on forums like this and just basically be pro EU.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=X9RNVIKDFMfPaLnmgsgM&url=http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/documents/Pdfs/hardsell.pdf&ved=0CCkQFjAFOBQ&usg=AFQjCNGPqv3ly2Hk90LF0Y5fbh5Gn-JQ4g
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html
when you tie this in with the "make the fools vote again" culture it shows what a deeply insidious thing the EU is and why, even faced with financial hardship I would be glad to be out of!
[MOD]"My opponents are paid shills" = yellow card.[/MOD]0 -
I suppose the UK could remain in a EU military pact for access to a free market, that would save the EU a fortune, On a Brit exit the remaining EU countries would have to up spending in this area massively and that's a fact, or else that Bear would feel a lot more comfortable around the polish border!
I think you may be confusing the EU and NATO. A UK withdrawal from the EU does not imply any reduced commitment to NATO. Or, if you think it does, you probably need to make that clear, and to explain why you think that.
Also iv yet to here anyone explain in a coherent manner why on a Brit exit Germany, who will already be suffering from recession and paying far more into the EU than now will not want to sell BMW'S to there third largest market, just close the factory's I suppose and watch the shares collapse? Yes yes Iceland, Norway blah blah but do they have a €50-€70 billion trade deficit with the EU?
Again, I think you’re a bit confused here. Whether or not the UK is in the EU, the Germans will be delighted to sell BMWs to the UK. The question is, will the UK be equally delighted to buy them? That would be a decision for the UK. I would have thought that was the whole point of their leaving the UK.
I think what you at trying to suggest, without offering any coherent argument for it, is the UK is such a vewy special pwincess that if they want to participate in the single market without accepting any of the associated commitments, the other 30 states involved will gladly agree.
Dream on, but while dreaming on you would be wise to refrain from accusing other boardies of making posts with “very little substance”. It can only expose you to ridicule.
0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »
I think you may be confusing the EU and NATO. A UK withdrawal from the EU does not imply any reduced commitment to NATO. Or, if you think it does, you probably need to make that clear, and to explain why you think that.
Again, I think you’re a bit confused here. Whether or not the UK is in the EU, the Germans will be delighted to sell BMWs to the UK. The question is, will the UK be equally delighted to buy them? That would be a decision for the UK. I would have thought that was the whole point of their leaving the UK.
I think what you at trying to suggest, without offering any coherent argument for it, is the UK is such a vewy special pwincess that if they want to participate in the single market without accepting any of the associated commitments, the other 30 states involved will gladly agree.
Dream on, but while dreaming on you would be wise to refrain from accusing other boardies of making posts with “very little substance”. It can only expose you to ridicule.
Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?0 -
I can't deal with points if you won't make any.Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?
- What military expenditure do you think the EU undertakes, and how much of it do you think Britain contributes? How signficant is that expenditure to the military security of Europe? If you are willing to say what your point is instead of just saying "Military! Bear! Money!" I'll try and address it but, as long as you have no point to make, I can have no response to offer.
- The Germans can't impose trade restrictions on the UK; as long as Germany is in the EU then the question of UK access to all EU markets (including Germany) is a matter for the EU (not Germany).
Of course the EU would prefer free access to UK markets. That doesn't mean, though, that they will do anything and everything the UK wants, without question, to get it. What you fail to grasp is that the UK equally wants access to EU markets - would badly need it, in fact - and the EU realises this. So the EU does have some bargaining power here - quite a lot of bargaining power, actually - and they will use it. Your fond imagination that if the EU dares to bargain with the UK Germany will "crash into recession" is just that. The EU and the UK will bargain over trade in the real world. And we have plenty of other examples of real-world bargaining for access to EU markets, and we know how they turned out. The EU's opening offer will be "you know our terms; join the EEA", and they have powerful reasons for not offering the UK better terms than anyone else can get. That's not to say that the UK has no room for maneouvre but, frankly, whatever the UK could agree in this scenario is going to look a lot more like EEA membership than you seem willing to admit.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're confusing the EU with NATO. Continental countries will adjust military spending to meet their needs. Most of them don't feel the need to go on fully-fledged cash-burn, wild goose chases in Afghanistan and Iraq.Again just fluff with no points dealt with, will the EU have to increase military spending on a Brit exit? will the Germans impose trade restrictions on the UK? will they accept a free market with someone who buys more from them and their loss would crash their economy? what do you think about how ireland would be fairing now if the first vote was respected? what about the EU spending money for viral marketing etc?
You're raising vague, headline non sequiturs. Don't expect detailed rebuttals on your content-free straw men.0
Advertisement