The UK and the EU: good fences - good neighbours?

[Skybird]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-all-but-name/

Can't be angry with the Brits, I wish Germany would walk the same way. I only demand them to be consistent and go it all the way. Demanding special rights but denying common obligations, or being given special treatement like in form of the infamous British rabate, are not acceptable.

Some would even ask if Britain ever was part of Europe anyway. Which I do not mean as an attack. I strictly reject a statement like that the "EU is Europe", and Europe is represented by the EU. To me, both things are mutually exclusive, and the more you have of the one, the less you have of the other.

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...-all-but-name/

Can't be angry with the Brits, I wish Germany would walk the same way. I only demand them to be consistent and go it all the way. Demanding special rights but denying common obligations, or being given special treatement like in form of the infamous British rabate, are not acceptable.

Some would even ask if Britain ever was part of Europe anyway. Which I do not mean as an attack. I strictly reject a statement like that the "EU is Europe", and Europe is represented by the EU. To me, both things are mutually exclusive, and the more you have of the one, the less you have of the other.

I voted for joining of a common market, but that's all. In hindsight I made a dreadful error. The UK will never be a true European Nation because of our common law. Europe is Governed by Roman Law which had the misfortune of being tampered with by Napoleon, he introduced far reaching laws and codes that the UK has always sought to avoid.

However well meaning the European law makers are, Roman law tends to dictate, this does not sit well in the UK, English common law, although not as old as Roman law is by it's nature far better system of law and gives people the freedom by consent that Europe cannot give.

Although I am not anti European, I do believe the day of reconing will soon be here when England will be asked to abandon common law by Europe in favor of Roman
law, I do believe this is already happening quietly under the counter as it where. There are also quiet voices in the USA talking about abandoning common law, if that where to happen the changes would be far reaching for all the peoples on the planet.

[Jimbuna]

The UK has never been a part of the EU in the truer sense of the word....we are an island nation and as such the mainland are quite entitled to forge whatever future together they deem fit.

IMHO there will be a referendum regarding whether we should stay in the EU or not within the term of the next UK parliament at the very latest and as such I am confident the Brit population will vote to leave.

Whether we get a rebate or not is irrelevant, we already receive less than we put in and as such those who get more out than they put in are welcome to remain in what is basically a fundamentally floored ideology sparked by the ideals of two nations we all know the names of.

Too many cooks spoil the broth and each country has its own agenda.

Get on with it......spectemur agendo.

[Catfish]

Leave, then.


Regarding England is putting more in, than receiving. Heard of the Blenheim Palace speech ?

Myth No 1: Britain's trade with the EU is less important than its trade with the outside world.
Facts: In 2011 the UK's bilateral current account deficit with China was 19.7 bn GBP. You ran a deficit with Russia, too.

Your commercial success is in Europe. Roughly half of UK exports go to the EU. The United Kingdom has - until recently - traded more each year with Ireland than it does with Brazil, Russia, India and China put together. The UK's trade growth with the new EU members is even more dynamic. Between 2003 and 2011 British exports to Poland have increased three times.

Myth No. 2: The EU forces Britain to adopt laws on human rights which are contrary in spirit to British tradition.
Facts: These rulings which you object to come from the European Court of Human Rights. The tribunal is not a part of the EU system. It is an institution of the Council of Europe, a noble British creation which pre-dates the EU. Here, as in so many other cases, the Eurosceptics blame the EU for the actions of European or other international institutions which have in practice nothing to do with it.

Myth No. 3: UK is bankrupting itself by funding Europe.
Facts: The much-debated monstrous EU budget is roughly 1 percent of the GDP of all members of the EU. UK public spending is nearly 50% of country's GDP.
Your EU budget annual net contribution is 8-9 billion pounds. Though it depends on the year, on average the UK contribution is similar to France's and less than Germany's. That is still less than 15 pounds per an average UK citizen and 5 times less than this year's interest on your national debt.

Moreover, some of this money comes back home. For example, UK transport and infrastructure companies have profited enormously from EU cohesion fund investments in Central and Eastern Europe. That improved infrastructure then gains UK exporters: higher levels of prosperity in those Member States mean new markets for UK companies.
The UK government itself estimates that every UK household "earns" between £1500 and £3500 every year thanks to the existence of the Single Market. That alone works out at between five and fifteen times of the UK's net budget contribution per household. It's a bargain.

[...]

So think hard: the EU is a market of 500 million people who enjoy the highest average standard of living in the world. According to the IMF and the World Bank, Europe***8217;s GDP is about 2.5 times than that of China and nine times that of India. Do you want to lose your privileged access to that market?

But there is, of course, a more political Eurosceptic argument as well. Some argue that the UK probably will be better off by leaving the European Union, but even if it isn't any losses are worth suffering for the sake of regaining international freedom of manoeuvre. It's better to be Canada than Illinois.

My answer to that is: yes, the UK outside the EU would have more freedom of manoeuvre, in a number of significant respects. But the UK would be less powerful and less free.

Certainly Britain would lose its influence in many international forums. By negotiating as one bloc in world trade talks, the European Union gives all of us, the UK included, a powerful and united voice to use when speaking to China and the USA. If you leave, you lose that. Let me quote from the findings of a report prepared in 2011 for Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in the House of Commons , I quote

"We recognize the fact that the UK's influence on the WTO can only be exercised through its membership of the European Union."

Britain standing alone would suffer not only on multilateral level. Are you sure that you will command the same kind of attention in, say, Kuala Lumpur, Lagos and Bogota? What about Washington? At the moment, your hosts know that you speak on behalf of London and have an influence to shape decisions taken in Brussels on behalf of the whole continent as well. Alone, you won't be so interesting.

Read the rest here:
http://www.londyn.polemb.net/files/p...Speech-ENG.pdf


Regarding Nigel Farage alone i say you should leave, you are not a real member of the EU anyway, you try to sabotage all just for the wrong facts and a boasting self-confidence . It is not so that others do not notice that. Suisse will be in the EU in less than 10 years. Also you should probably read the speech Churchill held, in 1946.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Tchocky]

Paging Mr Frost....

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

we already receive less than we put in and as such those who get more out than they put in .

Hm, ignoring all distortions and problems of the EU, and you know I am no freind of this EU at all, but:

by your logic, there would have be no union at all. That the econoimcially stronge rnations would assist weaker nations to develope, and that thus strong nations pay mroe in than the yget back and weaker nations pay lesser than what they get, has been the primary idea from all beginning on. There never would have been an EEC without that.

There is no point in that union's idea if everybody gets back exactly the amount of what he puts in. Then you can leave out any financial budget things and any aid programs all together!

As I said, ignore the obvious derailings for the moment. Me at least agrees to the original idea of the EEC as an economic union - nothing more -, but it seems you even never wanted that!? Imagine Germany would demand a German rabate, or would live by the idea that it should get back form the EU as much as it put in. Or France would do like that.

We never would have had even a EEC, then.

That strong economies would accept deficitary financial contributions to the EEC/EU and weaker ones would enjoys to be helped by getting more than they pay in, always was part of the deal. But it seems, Britain expected to get more form the EU, than it pays in - while it once was the third or fourth strongest economy in Europe.

It seems, Germany should even pay out Britain, or what? Well, why not, France's Holland more or less openly demands that from us, too. France - second largest economy in Europe.

Not that all this matters that much anymore. I just try to come to grip with the British reasoning. I never understood it, I only understood the principle of divide et impera behind it. Britian was one of the strongest voices to add as many members to the EU as possible and as fast as possible, no matter what, and also was one of the loudest voices in favour of a Turkish EU membership.

[Skybird]

Just some brief remarks to Catfish.

The European Court in Human Rights is under extremely strong influence by the political lobby that also massively influences the EU itself. To say the court in rfeality has nothing to do with the EU, is naively closing the eyes before the rwlaity now dmionating. It may not hjave been founded as a body of the EU, but in the modern present, it is not independent from t he EU anymore. Practical procedures see finetuning in close cooperation with EU bodies and offices. The coiurt today is more a body of the EU hierarchy, than it is independent in the historical way you describe.

Britain would likely be offered priviliged market access in a bit for making it to change its mind over time. Turkey has the same, for example.

The EU is turning more and more into a planned economy and an system oike we have seen in form of the Soviet system, like Germany today has uncomfrotable paralleles to the former GDR as well, thansk to Merkel and her systematic erosion of democratic basic principles. It'S emmbers lose more and more freedom, so do the citizens. We see wq growing trend towards media regulation, limiting free media and free speech, criminalisaiton of criticism of relgion and even the EU itself, and thisa parallel to the silent expropriation of private savings in form of state-wanted financial repression (negative interests that allow states to reduce their debts by eating up private savings).

I would be careful to say the EU "speaks with one voice" at international events. Back at home, the national interests and even private egos of polticians torpedoe statements made on the supra-European level all to often, and EU ideas too often do not work. The Chinese never were stopped by this "united Europe" to outmanouver Europe nevertheless to bolster their eocniomic raise. Diplomatically, neither the Us nor China takes the Eu for seriousor important anymore. Obama relatively openly even ignored diplomatic initiaves by the EU. EU representatives and head sof states even were ignored and not informed when the global big players like China, america, India, Brazil met for talks at international conferences. Everybody knows: the EU is not united at all, and we see that in all clearness in the Euro crisis. There also is no unity between the EU politeska, and the citizens of the European states. Because, as I said, the system too much is like the Soviet system already. And more and more people become aware of that.

Suisse will be in the EU in less than 10 years. Hm. Allow me to bet against that? I know some Swiss people, and their mentality. Different to what pro-EU media say, the Swiss for the most want to have not too much to do with the EU, or the Euro. The Swiss central bank has just sold one sixth of its euro-reserves, and replaced that with other currencies. Many referendums they have held came to outcomes over several issues that were a slap in the face of the official EU positions on these things. Ten years ago or so I made the mistake to tell Oberon that the Brits will introduce the Euro within the next ten years. Now you make a similar mistake regarding the Swiss. Well, makes me feel less lonely anymore.

[Catfish]

For all eurosceptics, why it is necessary for all european states, especially England and Germany, to remain in and develop the EU - it is long, it takes a while to understand what he is going to describe, but it is worth it.

Schmidt's speech, german:


This is heavy stuff, but it excels in decribing the future markets and its development. From economics to politics, staying in the EU is not generous, or something that can be easily shoved away. It is plain necessary, and if only for any european nation's own survival, to speak with one tongue and have a common currency. It also debunks the "weakness" of the Euro currency as wrong.

Churchill's speech in Zurich 1946 was brilliant and necessary
( http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?lin...s/zurich_e.htm), but the times and reasons for Europe have changed. So apart from the Blenheim Palace Speech (http://www.londyn.polemb.net/files/pdf/The%20Blenheim%20Palace%20Speech-ENG.pdf) the speech linked above explains why any european nation should think twice, before bashing, or leaving, the European Union.

Also remember that US-based institutes like Standard&Poors and the like have no interest, in a strong Euro currency.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish