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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The only meaningful measure of a nation's defense budget is as a percentage of GDP. Raw numbers are sophistry.

Yes the England should ditch the EU, cut taxes, get people off the dole and have more children.




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
The only meaningful measure of a nation's defense budget is as a percentage of GDP. Raw numbers are sophistry.

Yes the England should ditch the EU, cut taxes, get people off the dole and have more children.

Oh really? I see raw numbers as quite a good figure, unless you want us to not calculate how much we spend and just run on percentages?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
What if Scotland and Wales disagree with "little Englands" isolationist stance????

Historically both have more ties to the continent so could prove a bone of contention

Could Scotland technically acceed to the EU without England ??? Wales would be a little more difficult

Just wondering



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dj howls
What if Scotland and Wales disagree with "little Englands" isolationist stance????

Historically both have more ties to the continent so could prove a bone of contention

Could Scotland technically acceed to the EU without England ??? Wales would be a little more difficult

Just wondering

No, we would need the entire scottish parliment to agree to leave the united kingdom and I very much doubt that happenening.

Both have more ties?
What are you on about?
We live on the same bloody island, no one is closer than anyone else!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by ElTiante
The only meaningful measure of a nation's defense budget is as a percentage of GDP. Raw numbers are sophistry.

Yes the England should ditch the EU, cut taxes, get people off the dole and have more children.

Oh really? I see raw numbers as quite a good figure, unless you want us to not calculate how much we spend and just run on percentages?


Well you’ve just demonstrated how little you know about economics. Regardless of raw dollars, how can the US be decried for excess defense spending when we’re spending such a tiny fraction of our GDP on defense?

When you get a chance, take a look at an atlas. You’ll find America is a big country with a large coastline. In addition, America has extensive and wide ranging interests. It seems to me we’re spending a pittance.

Please, run down to the Wal Mart and pick up a couple clues.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElTiante
Well you’ve just demonstrated how little you know about economics. Regardless of raw dollars, how can the US be decried for excess defense spending when we’re spending such a tiny fraction of our GDP on defense?

Did I sorry frankly running around playing with numbers doesnt sound like fun to me.
Because your GDP includes how much your private sector and civilian companies make, not your actual government makes.



When you get a chance, take a look at an atlas. You’ll find America is a big country with a large coastline. In addition, America has extensive and wide ranging interests. It seems to me we’re spending a pittance.

Spending a pittance?
Your spending $437.111 Billion , with that you could easily demine the world for over 437 years!


Please, run down to the Wal Mart and pick up a couple clues.

Please stop playing with numbers and making fancy percentages.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
little england??
50+ million people live in ^little england^ out of britains 60 million population.

AVERAGE POPULATION (googled)

England - 50 million+
Scotland - 5.1 million
Wales - 2.1 million
Northern Ireland - 1.7 million

--
UNITED KINGDOM POPULATION - 60,441,457
--




Originally posted by dj howls
What if Scotland and Wales disagree with "little Englands" isolationist stance????

Historically both have more ties to the continent so could prove a bone of contention

Could Scotland technically acceed to the EU without England ??? Wales would be a little more difficult

Just wondering




[edit on 17-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
You missed the point so I will spell it out for you

Britain pulling out of the EU would be similar to Wales pulling out of the UK

1) suicide
2) possible only by some fluke of constitutional misjudgement


and yet there are still cretins who advocate both



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Yes, Great Britain should withdraw from the EU. The reasons for why are:

1) The EU is undemocratic. It is run by an unelected, bureaucratic institution - the European Commission.

2) Great Britain each year pays more to the EU budget than it gets from it. The difference between the two numbers, called the net contribution, is 4.6 billion euros.

3) Ongoing EU-US trade disputes, and the EUs unwillingness to obey WTO rulings that dont favour the EU, harm British exporters.

4) The EU is a protectionist customs union, which means that Great Britain cannot trade with countries that are not members of the EU.

5) The EUs main objective is to defeat the US. Therefore Great Britain, as an ally of the US, should withdraw from the EU?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
5) The EUs main objective is to defeat the US. Therefore Great Britain, as an ally of the US, should withdraw from the EU?

Eh? Where'd you get that from? BNP.co.uk?

Besides the US has been screwing us over on the JSF for quite a while now, the whole EU thing might just give the guys in the white house a kick up the arse.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Eh? Where'd you get that from? BNP.co.uk?

No.

Listen to me: the EU is led by France. France is an enemy of the US.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Besides the US has been screwing us over on the JSF for quite a while now

The reason for why they have been "screwing us" is that Great Britain is a member of the EU and the Airbus consortium. If Great Britain would withdraw from both, America would stop "screwing Great Britain".

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Listen to me: the EU is led by France. France is an enemy of the US.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Besides the US has been screwing us over on the JSF for quite a while now

The reason for why they have been "screwing us" is that Great Britain is a member of the EU and the Airbus consortium. If Great Britain would withdraw from both, America would stop "screwing Great Britain".

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Zibi]




I don't want to insult you, but after seeing your idiotic post over here and in
some other threads, I seriously doubt if you really have any knowledge about the subjects, or if your brains are still down there in communist Poland.



[edit on 3-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
1) The EU is undemocratic. It is run by an unelected, bureaucratic institution - the European Commission.


- No it isn't.

The EU is run by the democratically elected heads of the free and democratic independent nation states which comprise it along with Ministers from those states, directly elected representatives to the European Parliament along with appointees from the nation states' governments to such bodies as the European Commission.

It is true there is a 'democratic deficit' in relation to the EU's power structures but that is absolutely about the nation states retaining power and not passing it over to the EU (in fact that actual and true reality is absolutely the opposite of what you claim).


2) Great Britain each year pays more to the EU budget than it gets from it. The difference between the two numbers, called the net contribution, is 4.6 billion euros.


- If you prefer to reduce everything down to a wholly unrepresentative notion of what the UK government pays and and what the EU pays out in regard to the UK then I suppose that is up to you.
But it is hardly the whole picture.

Fortunately the majority here take a more reasonable and rounded view of the matter that takes account of the value to the UK of the total trade generated by our membership, the benefits to our scientific and technological base (where 'we' get to be a significant part of enterprises and projects that otherwise we could in no way afford alone) and the foreign investment 'our' EU membership generates.
Not just a very thin and completely unrepresentative the 'UK gov pays in/ the EU pays out' simplistic concept.

.......which is how come there is absolutely no serious appetite for a UK withdrawal from the EU amongst the British public.


3) Ongoing EU-US trade disputes, and the EUs unwillingness to obey WTO rulings that dont favour the EU, harm British exporters.


- If you think all EU-US trade disputes are the 'fault' of the EU then you are deceiving yourself.
As the record of judgements show that is just not true.

......and what sort of crazy world is it that would have us seek greater trade, understanding and cooperation but see us back out when a judgement came out that didn't suit us in any single particular instance?!

Some 'we' win, some 'we' lose.
That's the nature of dealing with other people, you don't get everything your own way all the time.


4) The EU is a protectionist customs union, which means that Great Britain cannot trade with countries that are not members of the EU.


- No it isn't, don't be absurd.

......and if you are blind to the goods here from around all of the world then that is your problem.
This is simply not true.


5) The EUs main objective is to defeat the US. Therefore Great Britain, as an ally of the US, should withdraw from the EU?


- What sort of paranoid nonsense is this?

The EU's main objective is that we all in Europe remain at peace.
Considering our (all too recent) history that is a goal some have the sense to cherish.

'We' also agree that, as nations with a shared set of values, we can achieve more and make far greater progress, politically and economically, acting together (in a world where size and economies of scale do matter) than we can alone and that that in itself is a major guarantee of a peaceful future.

Even the US is not immune to seeking collaborative partners in expensive and difficult ventures, nor in forming political/economic unions (NAFTA anyone?) today.

Sadly some on the UK right-wing (for some weird but undefined ideological reason) would prefer to traitor the UK to the USA and have us become little more than a mere 'state' as opposed to remaining an independent sovereign nation state with a full say and voting rights in the voluntary cooperative collective that the EU is.

......and the EU is not "led by France".
(it's not that long ago certain peoiple were trying to say it was all a Geman plot to take everyone over
).
The EU is actually in the process of the new member nations bringing a lot of change and trying to digest the reality brought by the refusal of France and Holland to agree to the so-called 'constitution'.
They are all formulating new groupings/alliances which are actually quite fluid and change depending upon the subject/interests concerned (which is absolutely normal and to be expected in any large democratic organisation).


[edit on 3-5-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   


No, it isn't.

It is. The unelected European Commission has the monopoly to propose new laws. Then, the new law proposal is being passed by the unelected Committee of Permament Representatives (COREPER). Then, it is passed by the council of chiefs of governments (in which Great Britain can be always outvoted), and then by the European Commission. If a member country does not abide by EU law, it is being punished by the ECJ. National parliaments are not authorised to know how their COREPER Representatives and chiefs of governments vote.



If you think all EU-US trade disputes are the 'fault' of the EU then you are deceiving yourself.

They are fault of the EU. It's the EU who is unfairly subsidising Airbus.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
No.

Listen to me: the EU is led by France. France is an enemy of the US.

The EU is led by austria thank you very much and I think you'll find that france is simply one of the major powers like oh I dont know a small country off the coast of mainland europe....
France is not an enemy of the united states dear god man listen to yourself, france is one of the UK's major allies. Hell we have a pact with them for over 100 years, just because the 2 DONT agree on many things like forign policy that does not make them enemies.




The reason for why they have been "screwing us" is that Great Britain is a member of the EU and the Airbus consortium.

Yeah and thier making us pick sides and side with them so we can become the 51st US state.


If Great Britain would withdraw from both, America would stop "screwing Great Britain".
[edit on 30-4-2006 by Zibi]

No they wouldnt, they are playing us like they did from 1900's onward. The US is looking out for the US and its time for GB to look out for herself!

Look past your americanised world and think about why the UK is being pressured by other countries to do whats best for THEM.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
[It is. The unelected European Commission has the monopoly to propose new laws.


- .....and just who appoints the membership of the European Commission then, hmmm?
It is not 'the EU'.
It is the free and democratically elected sovereign national governments.


Then, the new law proposal is being passed by the unelected Committee of Permament Representatives (COREPER).


- ......and just who appoints the membership of this 'COREPER', hmmmm?
It is not 'the EU'.
It is the free and democratically elected sovereign national governments.


Then, it is passed by the council of chiefs of governments (in which Great Britain can be always outvoted)


- Well by kind of 'logic' all member states can "always be outvoted" by the others. The fact still stands that the free and democratically elected sovereign nation states decide by vote (where there is also often the option to 'veto').

Your "can always be outvoted" theoretical word-play is hardly much of a credible yardstick.


If a member country does not abide by EU law, it is being punished by the ECJ.


- It may be.....unless an opt out is negotiated, or subsidiarity invoked or derrogation occurs......or it may simply live with being 'punished'.


National parliaments are not authorised to know how their COREPER Representatives and chiefs of governments vote.


- You carry on there pal, if you honestly think the real power in the EU is held with the 'COREPER' body (which is actually an administrative unit that coordinates and prepares the agenda for Ministers and Prime Ministers from the free and democratically elected sovereign nation states) then who am I to spoil your little paranoid fantasy?


They are fault of the EU.


- All of them?
Care to elaborate?

How about the steel dispute a little while back......or are you ignorant of all the other issues referred to the WTO by the EU or USA and only trying on a daft little Airbus bash/troll?


It's the EU who is unfairly subsidising Airbus.


- The whole arena of subsidy regarding Airbus and Boeing (which is in itself only a small part of the WTO dispute brought by the EU or USA regarding the other) is nothing like as absurdly simplistic as you clearly wish to paint it.

The flip side to such US claims are that Airbus get repayable loans and open and declared 'aid', the US prefers to aid to her aerospace industry with 'soft' defence contracts and research and development grants.

Each have a point (which is why after all the heat and noise has died down the matter is usually just left alone until the next flare up).

But hey, who cares about any of the facts when having a ridiculous Euro bash, huh?



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It is not 'the EU'.
It is the free and democratically elected sovereign national governments.

Yes, the European Commission is appointed by national governments, not elected by nations.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
and who appoints the membership of this 'COREPER', hmmmm?
It is not 'the EU'.
It is the free and democratically elected sovereign national governments.

Yes, the Committee of Permament Representatives is appointed by national governments, not elected by nations.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Well by kind of 'logic' all member states can "always be outvoted" by the others. The fact still stands that the free and democratically elected sovereign nation states decide by vote (where there is also often the option to 'veto').

Running Great Britain should be the exclusive task of the British national government.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I don't think it would be a rich idea that UK pull out of EU. They would lose some business, political and even more important R&D ties. Now, European education, European research are even more intertwined.

Even for defense, more and more military projects are not nation based any more, but are financed and implemented between different member states. I don't like these kind of budget waste but a franco-british carrier is supposed to be built one day.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Yes, the European Commission is appointed by national governments, not elected by nations.



The President of the Commission is chosen by the European Council, but the choice must be approved by the European Parliament. The remaining Commissioners are appointed by the member states in agreement with the President, who must decide the role of each Commissioner. Finally, the new Commission as a whole must be approved by the Parliament.


en.wikipedia.org...

I have learnt the european institutions procedures and I approve these definitions



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

They are fault of the EU. It's the EU who is unfairly subsidising Airbus.



The US government either subsides Boeing.
Next time do your homework, Boeing has received more than 23 billion of subsidy since 1992.

I don't even bother to reply on your other ridiculous and ignorant statements.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join