British Relevance in the European Union - and should they leave.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Q1 figures also show that we continue to export more to non EU countries than EU countries (the only EU country to do so) with the gap continuing to widen.

Hahaha, u wot m8?

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

56% of exports are going to Europe VERSUS THE REST OF THE WHOLE ING PLANET

[Cope]

I might have been happy with remaining in the EU if Cameron had managed to get us out of the "ever closer union" part and at the very least stopped our already obscene contributions being increased any further, but since the Franco-German axis has now put a stop to that I don't see an option other than exit. Although I firmly expect us to vote to continue our membership with all parties bar one campaigning against exit.

Don't worry. It's the third time the Germans have tried this, and it'll be the third time they fail.

[Pielstick]

Ferrets, I've presented a cogent argument for a Brexit. Thus far all you've done is wilfully misrepresent and cherry pick my points so you don't have to concede any part of your position. It's classic Ferrets and to be honest, boring as .

[Mangalore]

Don't worry. It's the third time the Germans have tried this, and it'll be the third time they fail.

You do actually understand how the EU works? It's quite frankly delusional to think Germany can dictate anything or ursurp anything. The only reason she can exercise so much influence is because she doesn't because the instance she does everyone will run away. That's why from the German perspective everything has to be embedded into European policy because otherwise germany will get isolated because she is the biggest country and has a sketchy history.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ferrets, I've presented a cogent argument for a Brexit. Thus far all you've done is wilfully misrepresent and cherry pick my points so you don't have to concede any part of your position. It's classic Ferrets and to be honest, boring as .

Oh please. I have just made a very clear argument as to why I think you wrong, and backed it up with one ONS study, three University studies and CIA World Fact Book economic figures. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, but if you're going to try and make this personal you know I'm not going to give a shite.

[Cope]

You do actually understand how the EU works? It's quite frankly delusional to think Germany can dictate anything or ursurp anything. The only reason she can exercise so much influence is because she doesn't because the instance she does everyone will run away. That's why from the German perspective everything has to be embedded into European policy because otherwise germany will get isolated because she is the biggest country and has a sketchy history.

I was being facetious.

However, even my top notch comedy raises an important point about British political culture, which is that it is typically more distrustful of European politics than the political cultures of other European states are. Of course, you have to remember that historically, British foreign policy was founded upon principles of isolationism and the maintenance of the "balance of power" in Europe. "Sceptred isle" syndrome continues to persist, and for good reason.

[Condottiere 40K]

7280
I think in this particular case, it's to have a hand in shaping policy.

And stop paying French farmers for over production, or over encourage economic migrants.

[Pielstick]

Oh please. I have just made a very clear argument as to why I think you wrong, and backed it up with one ONS study, three University studies and CIA World Fact Book economic figures. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, but if you're going to try and make this personal you know I'm not going to give a shite.

No. You've simply side stepped my arguments and misrepresented them. In doing so you can argue against me without addressing my actual points. You demand sources for my arguments and either ignore them or dismiss them as wrong. Naturally, all your sources are bulletproof, and your fields of expertise are wide and diverse. Therefore you can browbeat me into submission, you "win" and get to carry on being the alpha in the Mudpit.

I've seen it all a hundred times in many, many threads over the years. You attempt to suck people into the Ferrets Argument Vortex and then grind them down. You're very good at it.

However, I think any objective reader will note that you still failed to effectively counter any of my arguments - all you've done is throw up smokescreens in an attempt to drive the discussion into the Ferrets Argument Vortex.

[removeduser_487563287433]

No. You've simply side stepped my arguments and misrepresented them. In doing so you can argue against me without addressing my actual points. You demand sources for my arguments and either ignore them or dismiss them as wrong. Naturally, all your sources are bulletproof, and your fields of expertise are wide and diverse. Therefore you can browbeat me into submission, you "win" and get to carry on being the alpha in the Mudpit.

I've seen it all a hundred times in many, many threads over the years. You attempt to suck people into the Ferrets Argument Vortex and then grind them down. You're very good at it.

However, I think any objective reader will note that you still failed to effectively counter any of my arguments - all you've done is throw up smokescreens in an attempt to drive the discussion into the Ferrets Argument Vortex.

Literally what did I side step? Explicitly now.

[General Brittanicus]

You do actually understand how the EU works? It's quite frankly delusional to think Germany can dictate anything or ursurp anything. The only reason she can exercise so much influence is because she doesn't because the instance she does everyone will run away. That's why from the German perspective everything has to be embedded into European policy because otherwise germany will get isolated because she is the biggest country and has a sketchy history.

In all fairness I wouldn't say it is just Germany on its own, but throw in France as well and the two countries appear to be able to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to the European Union. The UK on the other hand appears to have no influence and doesn't even have a chance at even being listened to.

Hahaha, u wot m8?

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

56% of exports are going to Europe VERSUS THE REST OF THE WHOLE ING PLANET

As much as I am sure you put the up most trust in a source that appears to be based on somebodies University thesis I am afraid I am going to have to stick with the figures provided by HMRC instead:

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statisti...ges/EuOTS.aspx

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statisti.../NonEuOTS.aspx

For Q1 that is approximately £41 billion of exports to non EU countries and approximately £34 billion to EU countries or 54% non EU to 46% EU if you prefer. Our biggest export destination for Q1 is the United States, followed by Switzerland, Germany, France and then China.

That compares with almost £55 billion of imports from the EU for Q1 and £49 billion for non EU.

[Mangalore]

In all fairness I wouldn't say it is just Germany on its own, but throw in France as well and the two countries appear to be able to do whatever the hell they want when it comes to the European Union. The UK on the other hand appears to have no influence and doesn't even have a chance at even being listened to.


...

The same could be said about Germany plus the UK, it's just that because the UK doesn't commit to the EU that she is considered an unreliable partner. Schröder tried a Anglo-German engine inside Europe once, he got burnt and thus returned to a French-German engine where both sides know what can and cannot be done.

It's also not like France and Germany somehow agree on everything and they still need more support to create any EU policy.

[jackwei]

I don't believe that the UK would go under if it leaves the EU as there are other trade partners around the world and I am pretty sure they already have a plan for this otherwise EU Referendum wouldn't of been on the ballot in the first place plus the UK has the commonwealth as partners and other markets that are growing in Latin America, Asia and someday Africa which has lots of unused resources.

Be glad that there are people who speak out against the corruption in the EU and are willing to take action into their hands if the EU Establishment doesn't listen as the old saying goes "When men run out of the words they reach for their swords" but now it is more like "When men run out of words they reach for their pens"!!

Would rather be a man who is willing to speak out and not be one of those sheeps who go along with everything and bend over, just moan about things, do nothing about it willing to suffer the consequences and make up excuses for the mistakes made by those in Power who had the ability to prevent this problems happening and not listening or offering any compromise what so ever that benefits us!

[Pielstick]

it's just that because the UK doesn't commit to the EU that she is considered an unreliable partner. Schröder tried a Anglo-German engine inside Europe once, he got burnt and thus returned to a French-German engine where both sides know what can and cannot be done.

On the most fundamental level, successive German governments have wanted ever more centralisation of political and fiscal power within Europe. The UK on the other hand, just wants to be able to trade freely with everyone and isn't interested in political and fiscal centralisation. That's where the disconnect is.

So at the moment we've got an EU where the agenda quite clearly is more centralisation, ultimately leading to the ambition of a federal European state. The UK will never be at the heart of the EU as long as it rejects or opposes that agenda. The most important and illustrative example being the UK declining to join the Euro - the flagship European project.

So either the EU changes, or the UK changes. Neither have indicated they are prepared to do so. The logical conclusion is therefore the UK leaves the EU.

[removeduser_487563287433]

As much as I am sure you put the up most trust in a source that appears to be based on somebodies University thesis I am afraid I am going to have to stick with the figures provided by HMRC instead:

lol that's how you think you're going to win this, poisoning the well? It's the well known Atlas of Economic Complexity, produced by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If you're still not convinced then the actual data source is the UN's COMTRADE:

http://comtrade.un.org/

So... uh yeah. Don't try to imply my source is bad before you know what the it even is?

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statisti...ges/EuOTS.aspx

https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statisti.../NonEuOTS.aspx

For Q1 that is approximately £41 billion of exports to non EU countries and approximately £34 billion to EU countries or 54% non EU to 46% EU if you prefer. Our biggest export destination for Q1 is the United States, followed by Switzerland, Germany, France and then China.

That compares with almost £55 billion of imports from the EU for Q1 and £49 billion for non EU.

You're comparing a single three month period to a year mate... seasonality... Jesus. Trying to complain about the credibility of sources before you're even capable of comparing apples to apples. I mean according to your methodology the UK doesn't have a trade deficit:

"Because of the large increase in exports, the UK is now a net exporter this month, with exports exceeding imports by £0.1 billion."

Still waiting on Pielstick to identify the argument of his I didn't respond to.

[Principe Alessandro]

I bet that UK wants to remain in the EU only to spite the German-French block.

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ng-memory.html

Via the telegraph, via imb, who seems to think his voice isn't worthwhile here, the lazy so and so.

[imb39]

Quite lazy - very old, in fact...

Dreadful government already, and that's only after a few days. Cameron has proved to be woeful when dealing with Europe and pretty dreadful when dealing with his backbenchers. I predict that Britain will vote to stay in Europe. There will be hardly any changes in Europe - changing treaties etc will be impossible to get through when other countries have to have their own referenda. I also predict that Parliament will be quite unruly for Cameron. It should be much more interesting than the past 5 years - another folly as a result of a stupid law - the fixed term act. Not quite as asinine as passing a law 'not to put up taxes'. Still it went on to show that the British public were quite stupid.

[Cope]

Still it went on to show that the British public were quite stupid.

Yes, because electing easily the most qualified and reasonable candidate out of what we were given makes us "quite stupid".

[imb39]

The common alternatives to being in the EU are provided by the examples of Switzerland and Norway. Interestingly enough both countries HAVE to abide with many of the rules that the EU demands in order to have access to the trade area. There was, recently, a referendum in Switzerland about immigration. The Swiss voted to impose controls. Europe basically sad, fine - but then you lose the access you have. The Swiss backed down. Norway, in order to be a part of the trade block, has to abide by the same rules too. Neither country has ANY input into framing/influencing the rules.

Basically it seems to me the best option we have is to be part of the EU - at least in this way we have a lot of influence over where it heads (there is a lot of sympathy for Britain's approach to Europe). To pull out just sends the message that Britain is an insular country with a small focus on the world. Our voice will be diminished. We are no longer a world power. Can we stop living in the past and pretending that we are?

Yes, because electing easily the most qualified and reasonable candidate out of what we were given makes us "quite stupid".

Well, if you believe in the revisionist rubbish spurted out in the past 5 years, ignore the fact that Cameron has been a disaster in terms of foreign policy, that employment is full BECAUSE pay is so low and is subsidised by the government (ie our taxes), ignore the fact that this government want to pass a law that is pointless in the extreme (the Financial Times described it as ridiculous), that they want to extend a policy that has been one of the biggest drivers of the housing problems in the past 30 years (right to buy), close your eyes to the fact that because social care has been slaughtered that the NHS is on its knees (yes, funding there has been 'ring fenced'). Of course then there's the brilliant promise of we'll spend on child care, the NHS and everything else, but we won't tell you how - just trust us... I ask you. Yes, people were stupid. And don't get me started on the SNP scare. Gullible idiots.

I will never forgive Cameron for driving a wedge between Scotland and England. He put party before country - not once but twice. Immediately after the Scottish referendum and then during the election.

[Cope]

Well, if you believe in the revisionist rubbish spurted out in the past 5 years, ignore the fact that Cameron has been a disaster in terms of foreign policy, that employment is full BECAUSE pay is so low and is subsidised by the government (ie our taxes), ignore the fact that this government want to pass a law that is pointless in the extreme (the Financial Times described it as ridiculous), that they want to extend a policy that has been one of the biggest drivers of the housing problems in the past 30 years (right to buy), close your eyes to the fact that because social care has been slaughtered that the NHS is on its knees (yes, funding there has been 'ring fenced'). Of course then there's the brilliant promise of we'll spend on child care, the NHS and everything else, but we won't tell you how - just trust us... I ask you. Yes, people were stupid. And don't get me started on the SNP scare. Gullible idiots.

I will never forgive Cameron for driving a wedge between Scotland and England. He put party before country - not once but twice. Immediately after the Scottish referendum and then during the election.

Let's tone down the rhetoric shall we?

"Cameron has been a disaster in terms of foreign policy". How? Edward II was a disaster for foreign policy. Hitler was a disaster for foreign policy. Blair was arguably a disaster for foreign policy (Iraq). What exactly has Cameron done that's a "disaster for foreign policy"? He can't be blamed for ISIS, he can't be blamed for Ukraine, he can't be blamed for the Mediterranean immigration crisis, and he can't be blamed for the Euroscepticism. I also don't think his responses to any of the above has been a "disaster".

Employment is full because pay is low? Since when does low wages = full employment? If anything, if wages were that low, minimum wage earners would prefer just to live off benefits.

The right to buy is not "one of the biggest drives" of housing problems in the past thirty years. We have housing problems because we have too many people and too few houses, a problem which is has been caused largely by a wave of migration which has outstripped the state's capacity to expand the infrastructure to match the growth in population. Setting up a scheme to enable low income families to invest in their futures is not the real issue.

The NHS has been on its knees for the last 25 years. I've heard it constantly throughout my life to the point where it just becomes meaningless.

I also love how you blame Cameron for "driving a wedge between Scotland and England" when the SNP did that all by themselves by playing on unwelcome partisan emotions.