It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Would Britain be better off pulling out of the EU altogether??

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I think so,

i think the EU is slowing britain down!! - with britain giving up £7 billion ($12.4 billion) of its annual rebate to help boost aid to poor new, east European members.

would britain be better off pulling out of the EU altogether??




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I have always been against the EU because I believe they're aim is to have us all ruled from Brussels.
Outlandish claims you might think but the only vote we ever had on it was to join the common market, which was a good idea,but as people see more and more EU rulings are effecting everyday Brits lives.

Tony Blair keeps promising a public vote but it hasn't arrived yet I think when it does come the British people will vote to opt out.
Although when the referendum comes there will be a lot of Pro EU propaganda.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
It's too late for them to pull out. It would serve no purpose, beyond weakening Britain on the world stage.

They are not the hegemon they once were. WW2 took care of that. They are a powerful influence within the EU, tho.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKidThey are not the hegemon they once were. WW2 took care of that.


Dunno about that mate, the UK is the 4th largest economy in the world.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FactoryLad

Originally posted by EastCoastKidThey are not the hegemon they once were. WW2 took care of that.


Dunno about that mate, the UK is the 4th largest economy in the world.


Exactly. Before WW2, they were all-powerful, as the US is today (supposedly). That is no longer the case.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by FactoryLad

Originally posted by EastCoastKidThey are not the hegemon they once were. WW2 took care of that.


Dunno about that mate, the UK is the 4th largest economy in the world.


Exactly. Before WW2, they were all-powerful, as the US is today (supposedly). That is no longer the case.


its true with what your saying, the british emprie was at its strongest after WW1 and it was that factor which played a key role in the victory in WW1!!

but britain is the only country to fight in both world wars (from start to finish) and after WW2 britain took a battering financially (as to every other country in europe), that broke our back really!! -

but britain as done what not many empries have done before it, stood up and began running again!! - now 60 years on britain is now one of the greatest athletes in the world.

4th richest
2nd strongest military power.

i don't think the EU as done that for us - maybe its britains strong ties with the US? or maybe britain as stood up by itself!!

i'm not sure, but the EU these days we tend to put more into the EU than we get back.



[edit on 11-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
its true with what your saying, the british emprie was at its strongest after WW1 and it was that factor which played a key role in the victory in WW1!!


The Empire was at its LARGEST with the areas gained after WW1, but the decay was already starting. The dominions demanded and were granted more and more independent rights, a culmination point being their refusal to assist in a Turkey campaign in 1922. The costs of WW1 seriously impacted the british capability to financially uphold their empire, and the Balfour Declaration of 1926 marks the definitive beginning of the end.


but britain is the only country to fight in both world wars (from start to finish) and after WW2 britain took a battering financially (as to every other country in europe), that broke our back really!! -


The only country that fought both (european) world wars from start to finish is Germany


but britain as done what not many empries have done before it, stood up and began running again!! - now 60 years on britain is now one of the greatest athletes in the world.


4th richest


The UK has the 4th place in the Exchange rate GDP rating. But "richest" is usually ranked by GDP per capita. In that ranking the UK has the 20th place (according to CIA Factbook)


2nd strongest military power.

Highly doubtful, but lets not get into that.


i don't think the EU as done that for us - maybe its britains strong ties with the US? or maybe britain as stood up by itself!!

i'm not sure, but the EU these days we tend to put more into the EU than we get back.


A quick glance on the economic figures shows that the UKs main trade partners are all from the EU (exceptions are the USA and China). Though I think that it is impossible to accurately measure how much being part of the EU influences the trade, a big factor in successful trading is ease of access to markets and a common legal frame for it. So it is safe to say that membership in the EU greatly benefited trade relation between the respective nations.

Judging financial contribution to the EU by "how much we get back" is pretty pointless - thats not the idea behind it. The basic idea is subsidizing less potent members to improve trade relations. All the money that goes from the net payers in the EU to the net recipients is multiply paid back by trading with those improved economies.

As a personal notice, I find this common british EU bashing pretty annoying. The EU has granted many favors to the UK when it was at its lowest (in the 80s), most notably the rebate, and you can thank the Iron Lady for that because she unmistakeably held the rest of the EU at gunpoint, "either you agree or we are out" so to speak. Now that the economy is up and running again suddenly the EU consists of "greedy corrupt bastards" whose "sole aim" is to control the british economy, a scheme gladly taken up by parts of the testosterone-high british press. (BTW, did you know that France pays for 30% of the british rebate?). It´s rather shameless that several groups in the UK gladly accepted the benefits from the EU but now that its time to do their share, they would rather opt to retreat... I have no problem with the discussion whether the UK should be in the EU or not, that is a healthy part of a democratic process; but the reasons and arguments given are often bigotted, to say the least.

Its interesting to see how no other of the net payers so frequently critizes the EU for being a weakening factor, and especially from Germany, which has always been the highest absolute as well as net contributor) you rarely hear a critical word - are all these countries only stupid or might it be possible that they recognize the trade benefits to be more valuable than the billions paid to EU? I know that the EU and continental Europe are unpopular in a good share of the british population, but there is a good reason why many of your politicians and economic persons are decisively pro EU.

[edit on 11/2/2006 by Lonestar24]

[edit on 11/2/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
hi, i'm not good at those quotes so i'll just reply to you in 1 post:-

as we all know the 'richer' countrys in the EU pays more into the organistion than the middle and smaller size countrys!!

yes as you said, the 'iron lady' won britain a rebate, so it can make our payments fairer!! yet out of all the countrys in the EU britain has still paid most money into the EU than any other member country (i don't know where you get germany from) :/

britain over the years have been paying 2 and half times the amount of france into the EU, without the rebate it would have been (15 times the amount)


we have now lost a big chunk of our rebate payment so britain will be paying EVEN MORE into the organisation.

you say france pays 30% of our rebate (i'm not sure if this is true i'll have to look into it), but even so france get massive discounts from the agricultural side (which a review is taking place in 2012)!!

don't for one mininute think britain have gained more from the EU than we have put in because if you think that your facts are wrong my freind


about the military, Britain are the 2nd highest funder of military research and development in the world (after US) - and we have the 2nd highest defence budget in the world, therefor that would make britain the 2nd most powerful country in the world (do some research on google)!!

about britain being NOT being 4th richest in the world (again do some research dude)!!


if we are 20th (as you say) why is britain in the G8 then? (WORLD RICHEST AND MOST POWERFUL COUNTRYS)?? - and why are britain 'probably' the most powerful country in the EU?
----

all in all rebate or not, britain have put LOADS more into the EU than we have gained from it, we are the highest contributer into the EU and now our rebate as gone we'll be putting EVEN MORE into it.

time for britain to pull out, we'd be much better off as a nation.


[edit on 11-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Britain (4 countries),France and germany mostly fund the E.U, no wonder we take the most out.
I think E.U. countries would trade with Britain through nessecity whether we're in the E.U. or not ,do you agree.
ps I think nessecity is spelt wrong but I'm no scholar.


[edit on 11/2/2006 by kuhl]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
yes as you said, the 'iron lady' won britain a rebate, so it can make our payments fairer!! yet out of all the countrys in the EU britain has still paid most money into the EU than any other member country (i don't know where you get germany from) :/

britain over the years have been paying 2 and half times the amount of france into the EU, without the rebate it would have been (15 times the amount)


we have now lost a big chunk of our rebate payment so britain will be paying EVEN MORE into the organisation.


Where I got Germany from? Possibly from the official reports? For example in 2002 Germany paid 22.8% of the total budget, followed by France with 18.2%, Italy with 14.5% and the UK with 13.1%. Since the EU payment rate is largely based on the GNI (Gross National Income) these rates were more or less stable until 2002 (after that the new members joined).

Although I couldnt find a definitive historical statistic on this, this automatically means that Germany has been the highest payer in the EU, thats a simple logical deduction from the fact that Germany has had the largest absolute GNI in Europe for decades. And I dont think I have to give a source for this, since it is common knowledge that Germany is the largest economy in Europe, as well as the most populous country.

Your claim that the UK has paid 2 1/2 or even 15 times more than France is simply NOT correct - That would mean that France would have paid about the amount of what Luxembourg pays - I assume you have misleading information or simply misunderstood some figures. Basically the economies of France and the UK have been roughly on par for the last decades, so that means that both have about the same amount to pay - without the UK exclusive rebate! The UK joined the EU in 1973, and got its rebate in 1984 - since then it consistently pays less into the EU than France. So following your reasoning, the UK would have payed 6-8 times as much as France in the years from 1973 to 1983, and that in a growing economic debacle - simply not feasible.


you say france pays 30% of our rebate (i'm not sure if this is true i'll have to look into it), but even so france get massive discounts from the agricultural side (which a review is taking place in 2012)!!





don't for one mininute think britain have gained more from the EU than we have put in because if you think that your facts are wrong my freind


I said in my earlier post that you cannot compare the amount the "giver nations" pay in to the amount they DIRECTLY get out of the EU. If anyone would do that, then the EU would be disbanded by every single of these paying nations pretty quick. The idea behind the payments is to strengthen the EU as a whole which results in far higher trade benefits for those nations that give money. You have to think on a wider scale here, and not simply count your incoming and outgoing "EU beans". And these trade revenues are EXACTLY why our nations help financing the weaker EU members - we MAKE CASH from it!

And furthermore: The net payment of the UK (Money payed to EU minus the money RECEIVED from the EU was a meager 0.17% (the table at the bottom) of Britains GNI. And thats exactly why the allegation that the EU would "feed" on the UK simply DOES NOT CUT IT!


about the military, Britain are the 2nd highest funder of military research and development in the world (after US) - and we have the 2nd highest defence budget in the world, therefor that would make britain the 2nd most powerful country in the world (do some research on google)!!


I only know the UK spent £2.6bn on military research, I didnt find a relative statistic to other countries - and that isnt really relevant. I can however say that your claim for "2nd highest military spending" is not true, and I can back that up with a source - I didnt even need google for it.. But as I said earlier, we shouldnt get into this, it serves no purpose.


about britain being NOT being 4th richest in the world (again do some research dude)!!


if we are 20th (as you say) why is britain in the G8 then? (WORLD RICHEST AND MOST POWERFUL COUNTRYS)?? - and why are britain 'probably' the most powerful country in the EU?


The G8 is a selection of the world´s economically and industrially strongest countries - not "the richest and most powerful" (although that goes hand in hand). That Britain would be "probably the most powerful country in the EU" is your speculation, its a claim that cannot be backed up.

Obviously you didnt really understand my earlier explanation on "richest country". Since a sheer GDP number doesnt reflect the characteristics of a nation, if you speak of "richest" country you usually have to rfer to the GDP PER CAPITA. As an example lets say we have Country A with a GDP of $1000 and country B with a GDP of $2000. Now according to YOUR logic Country B would be richer. But if I tell you now that Country A has 100 citizens (meaning a GDP per capita of $10) and Country B has 1000 citizens (meaning a GDP per capita of $2) - who would be richer now? Country A of course.

And thats why you have to look at the list of GDP per capita (where the UK has the 20th place) to really asses the wealth of a population, and not the plain absolute GDP (Where the UK is Nr.4 - unless we look at the more comparable GDP (Purchasing Power Parity)...)

Well, obviously you have the firm belief that the UK woul be better off without the EU, and that Europe only TAKES from the UK, despite enough proof ofthe contrary. Let just ask one question, imagine if the UK was again in the salad like it was in the 80s... would you then think different about an EU membership? Is it really the only relevant question wether you give or receive? Would be kind of a political flip-flopping, wouldn´t it?

I´d rather say that you can be glad that you have politicians that look beyond the popular opinionated nationalistic bullcrap and do not consider leaving the EU a sensible option, but thats only my opinion...

[edit on 11/2/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
wow i don't know where to start, i think i'll let links do the talking just the way you have!!


ok first up,

'MILITARY SPENDING

(link) www.armedforces.co.uk...

my statistics are little more upto date than yours


END
=============
HIGHEST EU CONTRIBUTERS

well this is all i could find, but again mines a little more update date than yours.

news.bbc.co.uk...

if you scroll down to "What is the UK stance?" there it will tell you about how the UK has put 2 and half times the amount into the EU than france as in the last 10 years, without our rebate we would have put (15 times the amount)!!

my statistics show 2003's contrubtions into the EU, (id love to see 2004 and 2005's) -

END
-----
UK BETTER OFF WITHOUT THE EU

so your telling me by the UK giving up £7 billion of its rebate, we will actaully beneft from it AND make more money from it, don't make me laugh mate!!

------

RICHEST IN THE WORLD

lol you don't judge the richest nations in the world by that GDP per captia, its a well known fact that the US is the richest country in the world - but by going by these statistics 'luxembourg is AND norway is even richer than the US?' dude are you having a laugh or what??

acording to this then 'San Marino' and 'Cayman Islands' which have a smaller population than my home village of 25,000 is a richer country than the likes of (britain, germany, italy, france, japan)


look dude, just type it in on google "uk 4th richest in the world" and you'll find LOADSSSS of results with websites telling you this


-----
THE IRON LADY AND THE 80'S

i'll answer this myself without links!!

yes i am saying, britain would be better without the EU and i do believe britain puts into it than it receive's and is 'NOOOOO proof on the contrary' because there is none!!

i'm not just saying ONLY britain 'give' to the EU more than they 'receive' other countrys do also (france, germany, holland and sweden) but we only do that so we are not living in a europe full of conflicts and war - that's the heavty price 'esblished nations' pay by being in the EU!!

wasn't that the reason the EU was set up in the 1st place? (so europe don't fight with each other anymore) ie the world wars!!

but things have moved on - europe isn't at war anymore and this post isn't about 'SHOULD FRANCE PULL OUT OF THE EU' (or any other country) if anyone from those country's want to make a post let them do so, but this post is about 'should britain pull out of the EU' theres no gains for us still being in there!!

you talk about the 80's and the so called 'salad' like we was, that was not the true reason why we got our rebate!!

the reason is we was STILL paying more into the EU system than many other countrys, and we received little benefits in return such as other countrys (in particular france)

back in the 80's britain was more a 'contrbutor' than a 'receiver' and yes those times was troubled times for britain, jobs was at a low point - pit strikes (the dreaded poll-tax etc)!! - thatcher nearly ruined us.

but that had nothing to do with the EU - the reason behind the rebate was britain paying MORE into the EU with little in return, thats the true reason behind the rebate (which we have NOW given a large poportion up)

that = britain 'lossing out' & 'paying out' even MORE, just like we always have.



[edit on 11-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
ps:- whats your nationality btw??



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i'm not sure, but the EU these days we tend to put more into the EU than we get back.


Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying Britain is weak. It's not. It is one of the biggest strengths of the EU. What I'm trying to say is I see the UK being much stronger buttressed by the EU. It would weaken itself by pulling out (b/c it is not as strong as it once was). They benefit each other.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i'm not sure, but the EU these days we tend to put more into the EU than we get back.


Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying Britain is weak. It's not. It is one of the biggest strengths of the EU. What I'm trying to say is I see the UK being much stronger buttressed by the EU. It would weaken itself by pulling out (b/c it is not as strong as it once was). They benefit each other.


hi m8, ive found these 2 links which shows alternatives for britain if we ever decided to pull out of the EU!!

www.brugesgroup.com...

www.news.telegraph.co.uk.../news/campaigns/eunion/eualternative.xml



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Yes, there are alternatives. I'm just saying the easiest and wisest thing for the UK to do is to LEAD the EU. It's a much safer bet then going the "NAFTA" route.

The question is, which EU country will spawn the anti-Christ?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
i'm not really religious so i don't know!! - therefore i don't really know much about this 'anti-christ' ive heard a lot of people talk about.

but i'm curious as to why you think the anti-christ would come from the EU??


Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Yes, there are alternatives. I'm just saying the easiest and wisest thing for the UK to do is to LEAD the EU. It's a much safer bet then going the "NAFTA" route.

The question is, which EU country will spawn the anti-Christ?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Yes, there are alternatives. I'm just saying the easiest and wisest thing for the UK to do is to LEAD the EU. It's a much safer bet then going the "NAFTA" route.

The question is, which EU country will spawn the anti-Christ?


IT does not matter which EU country or race becasue they could be mixed raced or dual passport between the EU and an Islamic country and pull the strings on both sides.

Britain should join America they fight with them as an Army and have the same language and routes. If Britain own the falkland Islands then I see no problem Britain being a part of a state. The rest of Europe do not even speak the same language they should join with America and get the most of the mean average economywise.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 04:59 AM
link   
As a pro-EU Briton I think the idea of the UK leaving the EU a ridiculous dangerous fantasy.

Thankfully no-one, excepting a small fringe element, seriously imagines the UK doing any such thing.

The EU has benefitted the UK during our membership and continues to do so in.

As members we are fully involved and very influential long-standing members of the largest single trading group in the world, quite how leaving that group would be considered a 'step forard' by any but the most blinkered anti-EU zealot is beyond me.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
China is the fourth largest in the world, it has passed the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland afew months ago


There is really no point of pulling out of the EU now



i think the EU is slowing britain down!!


We are slowing ourselves down.



Britain should join America they fight with them as an Army and have the same language and route


Hmmm, i would rather not join a declining super power, plus i dont think we will give up our history just to join the "good old" stars and strips. We do not have the same language, the United States speak American English.

We should stick with Europe, European ties are important to us. We dont wan to block ourselves off from Europe.

[edit on 18-2-2006 by infinite]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
I only know the UK spent £2.6bn on military research, I didnt find a relative statistic to other countries - and that isnt really relevant. I can however say that your claim for "2nd highest military spending" is not true, and I can back that up with a source - I didnt even need google for it.. But as I said earlier, we shouldnt get into this, it serves no purpose.

Seems the CIA is not as up to date as the MOD....bit worrying actually..
www.armedforces.co.uk...


In general terms defence is related to money. Estimates for the world's top five defence budgets for 2005 (in billions of US$ and the latest year for which accurate figures are available) are as follows:


United States $429 billion
United Kingdom $50 billion
Japan $47 billion
France $42 billion
Germany $32 billion

Hmm...just a bit of food for thought..




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join