It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Well I Was Correct About What The French Would Do If We Exit The E.U.

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 11:19 AM

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot

why do you expect France should shoulder the costs of dealing with the issue of protecting the UK borders if we are not part of the EU?

They are on French soil. It's a French responsibility.

Are you saying The French would quite happily allow illegal immigrants to cross The Channel to The U.K. ? If they would be prepared to do that rather than sort the situation out on their own soil then all i can say is " Shame On Them "

An interesting, but mistaken, interpretation.

These are not migrants wanting to stay in France. The French are dealing with those.

These are migrants wanting to leave France. The only nation I can think of that controls exit like that is Israel. No other nation forces people to stay.

Under an international agreement, the French and our own Border Force are enforcing British border controls in France. Our borders, our policies, in their country with their resources.

The French are perfectly entitled, legally and morally, to pull out of the agreement.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

So what are you saying exactly? You want those migrant men in Calais to come to the UK or something lol?

No fear with me, I know that the ferry and train operators will prevent them boarding so France's threat is a silly distraction that the 'remain' crowd are making out is a is not.
Those thousands of men are the problem of France and will continue to so after any leave vote.

That pleases me.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

We do not need confirmation of things like this, they are givens, obvious choices to make. After all, why would the EU spend member state taxpayers money on defending the borders of another land, outside its aegis?

This is so true. I think a lot of you Poms (you excluded; you're always logical) see yourselves as Lords of the high Seas, ruling the World and giving nothing back in return except a Monarchy and cricket. Being Australian I moan at the lack of European historical knowledge by my fellow Aussies. History runs thick in Europe. Most Europeans remember the past and how member states can easily turn on each other in quick time, so I think there will always be a level of distrust. It makes sense that France would not enforce refugee movement as it does now were England to leave.

Of more concern is how Turkey allows people from the Middle East easy access to the rest of Europe. Even before the Syrian crisis Italy and Greece were being drowned by Arabs and North Africans seeking a better economy/jobs and social security entitlements than their own countries.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:10 PM
a reply to: Discotech

We sure know how to pick our Allies

Allies when it suits Mother England
If you bothered to look at your own history you would learn that Churchill refused to allow Aussie troops back to Australia to defend Australia because they were "needed" in the Middle East during WW2. England only needs Allies as cannon fodder.

Like the Opium Wars with China the main reason the Brits Yanks and Aussies are in Afghanistan is to ensure a steady supply of drugs enter the West without Al Qaeda interference. The War on Terror is a cover story to keep the masses asleep.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:13 PM
a reply to: grumpy64

There could be a lot more heading to Europe than the other way around.

Seriously are you living under a rock, what about the Syrian refugees in Europe that shows no sign of abating. I don't think they made it as far as England

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:14 PM

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Flavian

Many of our trade deals with SE Asia are as part of the EU trade bloc

It makes one wonder how The U.K. ever managed to function as a trading nation before we joined The E.U.

We did. And also very well.


The US and Germany had overtaken us economically by the end of the nineteenth century.

By the 1930s, the Empire was losing us money.

The second world war almost destroyed the British economy. It was only Atlee's aggressive interventionism that saved the country, particularly after Truman cancelled US aid within a few years of the end of the war.

Churchill saw Britain's only option was closer ties with Europe, going as far as to speculate about a federal Europe. Ernest Bevin preferred cosying up the US, helping to create the Marshall Plan and NATO while the mainland started breaking down trade barriers.

The fifties and sixties saw crisis after crisis, devaluation after devaluation, a slow death spiral for the UK economy tempered by a consumerism and explained away by blaming the unions.

Labour and Tory governments alike begged to be let into European markets. The main obstacle wax DeGaulle, who saw Britain as an American cuckoo in the nest.

Britain's entry coincided with unmanageable growth under Ted Heath and the oil crisis. Some of us are old enough to remember petrol ration coupons and the fifty quid currency limit when travelling abroad. Heck, most of London seemed to be made of corrugated iron. Bomb sites and dumped cars were our playgrounds.

Without Europe, the seventies would have been much, much worse.

Thatcher knew this, which is why she fought for a "strong Britain at the heart of Europe", getting the best deal we could. The European Social Fund paid for the regeneration of the post industrial north and Ulster. Thatcher pushed through the Single European Act and laid the ground work for the Maastricht agreement because she believed Britain needed Europe more than Europe needed us.

Major carried on building Britain's power base in Europe, as did Blair and Brown.

Then came Cameron, trying to assert himself after a fairly mediocre showing against Gordon Brown. In one meeting, in December 2010, he blew it all standing up for British banks. Our Tory media called it a historic veto. The rest of the world called it a hissy fit and decided the British weren't worth taking seriously.

So, we have an economy with no industrial or manufacturing base, dominated by transnational financial institutions. We have a leader who is not taken seriously - Sarkosy and Obama didn't invite him to a ceremony to mark the end of the Libyan intervention even though he was at a summit in the same city on the same day! Most of the rest of the world is in trading bloc's formal - NAFTA, ASEAN etc - or informal - like the developing nations being groomed by China.

In the 50s we had an industrial and manufacturing base. There were no trading blocs and each nation made its own arrangements. Churchill was PM.

If we struggled then, could we manage now?

Yes, but a great cost.

Foreign companies and investors are contingency planning for Brexit. Day one outside the EU, they're going to ask what we will give them to stay. Subsidies, tax breaks, sweeteners, cuts in employment protection.

Coming with the collapse of the pound - remember the plunge after Boris raised is his colours - the government will be very cooperative. After all, we can always flog off more of the NHS and talk to Chinese about remortgaging.

Some businesses will stay, subsidised by the taxpayer to keep the British economy of afloat. Many will want more than we can give and leave.

We will not have to renegotiate our trade agreements. We can stay in the EU's shadow, like Switzerland and Norway, stuck with the same rules but without a say in them.

If we do renegotiate, imagine the scene. Our chaps sit down, representing a market of sixty million with nothing but cheddar and whisky to trade. On the other side, a market of half a billion, with everything from steel and cars to gas and textiles to trade. How favourable do you think those talks will be?

And don't forget Scotland. The EU was a huge factor in the referendum. Had the EU thrown protocol to the wind and given Salmond the nod, we'd need passports to go to the Edinburgh Festival. If we leave the EU, Scottish independence will be a live issue again. Even Gordon Brown won't be able to save the Union then.

While all this is going on, do you think Rupert Murdoch and Richard Desmond and Nigel Farage and all the other wealthy Brexit backers, the banks and the hedge funds, will lose money? I can't see them raiding the pound coin jar to pay the lecky.

The EU isn't perfect. No political or economic system is. The alternative, however, is worse and no amount of vague historical revionism will change that.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:15 PM

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: grainofsand
Why are we still bleating about this?
Ferry and train companies have ultimate responsibility for who they carry so if the French let them through border control they can easily be stopped from boarding, same as you can't get on a plane without a passport.

£8 Billion a year EU membership fees saved will more than cover the cost of increased security.
Sheesh people get over the lame scaremongering lol
This is a non story and a toothless threat by France.

Ferry and Train companies have X-ray and baggage security just like the airlines. No passport - no entry. No ticket - no entry. Suspicious items - no entry.

Eurostar, yes. The ferries, no.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:27 PM
England want to leave EU because things don got their way : totally ok

France stop controlling the UK Border since England left the EU : omg frenchies are traitors

totally make sense....

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:01 PM

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

And don't forget Scotland. The EU was a huge factor in the referendum. Had the EU thrown protocol to the wind and given Salmond the nod, we'd need passports to go to the Edinburgh Festival. If we leave the EU, Scottish independence will be a live issue again. Even Gordon Brown won't be able to save the Union then.

So Brexit equates to the death of the UK but we get rid of Scotland?

Damn. Tough choice, but sometimes you just have to swallow your pride to make the right decision.

Brexit it is. We can always boil down the wallpaper to make paste soup if the kids need to eat.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 01:09 PM

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
So, we have an economy with no industrial or manufacturing base, dominated by transnational financial institutions.

You are wrong. The UK, like most other developed economies has a focus on services. The level of manufacturing is c. 15% of GDP, like France, the US and others.

UK manufacturing is strong with the UK currently the 11th largest manufacturing nation in the world. Manufacturing makes up 11% of UK GVA and 54% of UK exports and directly employs 2.6 million people.

Source of quote

There's plenty of high value manufacturing in the UK, driven by innovation and skills. However, as a generalisation the manufacture of plastic toys and assembling computers has moved to places where life and labour is cheap.

China makes things. China assembles things. China has cheap labour. As China's labour prices rise their manufacturing base will shrink and it will be India's turn.

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 03:51 PM
a reply to: paraphi

We have the same manufacturing base as France and the US - and they want to stay deep in trading blocs.

Think about it.

Your source has a picture of a Range Rover. Owned by Tata. An Indian company. Who can pull out if they don't get what they want. Tomorrow.

Where are the British manufacturers?

We have innovative manufacturers. Where are Dysons made?

And yes, our main focus is services, like most developed nations - and they want to stay deep in trading blocs.

Think about it.

Who owns O2? Who owns Sodexho? Who owns EDF? Which country owns 9% of Thames Water? Who bankrolls Uber?

British service companies? Sure - the stock exchange is full of them. What kind of institution own most of the shares?

This is not 1956. Our economy is built on foreign money. We don't have a solid, home grown base.

Business knows this and have us by the short and curlies.

The EU has two purposes - to facilitate business and capital and to protect its citizens. It's a balancing act, with individual rights balancing the excesses of capital and the needs of capital tempering the rights of the individual. That's why the EU is not a straight left-right issue. There's enough to love and hate from both perspectives.

If we leave the EU, business and capital will want sweeteners to stay in the UK. And they'll get them.

Who's going to stand up for the man in the street?

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: paraphi

An afterthought, apropos of something else I suppose.

When the Allied occupation forces moved into Germany in 1945, Britain could have had Volkswagen - patents, plant, tools and all - as spoils of war.

The British car manufacturers said we didn't need it.

How did that turn out?

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 03:55 PM
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Another afterthought, apropos of even less.

Did you ever wonder why Fiat featured so strongly in The Italian Job?

Leyland wouldn't give the film producers Minis. Fiat offered to help.

The producers bought the Minis but kept Fiat as consultants. Hence the scene on their test track.

The last seventy years are full of daft business practice. Britain before the EU was on its uppers.

posted on Mar, 6 2016 @ 05:56 AM
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

That can be arranged in a weekend so no problem and no need for lame scaremongering lol
Again, the French can do what they like, those migrants won't be getting on the trains and ferries, unlucky.

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 08:14 AM
a reply to: EvillerBob

I suppose you have highlighted the fundamental difference. I think that our absence of a real constitution and lack of restrictions on parliament is the major problem with the UK political system.
As many criticism as I have of the US political system (and they are many and varied) I think that the constitution and in particular the bill of rights is something we should be deeply envious of in the UK.

posted on Mar, 7 2016 @ 09:20 AM
a reply to: ScepticScot

The constitution in and of itself is mostly powerless. What happened after 9/11 proved that. Where its real worth lies is in uniting and focusing the will of the people.
edit on 7/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in