Scofflaw wrote: » 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
Jim2007 wrote: » 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.
Jim2007 wrote: » 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.
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.
McDave wrote: » 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.
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" ?
McDave wrote: » 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.
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?
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.
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?
meglome wrote: » What happens if their access to 430+ million people is curtailed? You think the money will stay in Britain? I don't.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Ok, I'll try writing slower.
Would you prefer countries raising objections to eu treaties (and being annoyingly troublesome) or signing up to a treaty and blatantly ignoring it?
Fratton Fred wrote: » Easy to say when you are taker, not the giver.
Fratton Fred wrote: » Do they though?
Scofflaw wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
gallag wrote: » But why pay €10 billion to sell someone €20 billion when you buy €30 billion from them?
Frank Lee Midere wrote: » Is Ireland still a net recipient? That's nuts.
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?
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?
The Corinthian wrote: » You're not buying €30 billion from them though.
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
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.
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?
professore wrote: » No it isn't : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#Net_contributors_and_recipients
gallag wrote: » 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?
Fratton Fred wrote: » Two very long posts, yet other than attacking the posters, no actual comment on the points raised. Bravo sir.
