Ooh! Damn! Here am I, listing reliable sources of anti-EU bilious nonsense, and I forgot the Telegraph!
I think I'll reply to your posts in order, Wizard:
Originally posted by UK Wizard
i was wondering when you would reply StrangeLands
Well, I wasn't going to reply, because I didn't want you to think I was persecuting you. But then, you had to go too far, didn't you?
they couldn't afford to stop trading with any of the big european countries (not just Britain) or they would have a shortage of goods and
their already growing unemployment would erupt
That is
possibly true, although I'll leave it for qualified economists to bicker over the minutiae, but there are several key factors which
are - unsurprisingly - absent from that story. Firstly, the figures are from 2002, and, although France had a bad time in 2003, they are now rapidly
returning to stability. By 2005, predictions say that France's deficit will fall below the magical 3% limit, and their growth rate will be back
around the 2% level. Unemployment, too, is growing at a slower rate than at any point in the last five years.
Secondly, it's worth remembering that GDP growth in the Eurozone averaged 2% over the past 5 years. The economies of
five of the core EU
countries grew faster than Britain over the same period.
And thirdly, of course, you must remember that withdrawing from the EU would make it even more expensive for France to trade with us, whatever state
their economy is in. It's just not going to happen - a cut in mutual trade would be inevitable, and we would lose out too. The difference is that
France would lose
one of their foreign markets - we would lose
twenty five.
Put simply, being on the outside of the EU excludes us from the trade and economic advantages shared by the member countries - even if our economy is
stronger right now, it won't remain so when every British company who sells a product or a service in Europe is being significantly penalised.
They can afford the loss. We can't.
are you going to reply to the we put in £2 and get £1 back arguement Strangelands
Beyond the urban myth, I can't find any concrete figures which support that statement, Wizard. If you can find them, I'll respond, but at the
moment I'd have to say that it's just untrue. I
have found, however, independant assesments which reveal that Britain is
£14 billion
poorer because we didn't join the Euro when it was launched. Moreover, since the Euro was launched, Britain's share of foreign investment to EU
countries (i.e. from America, Japan, Australia etc.) has fallen from 28% to
less than 5%*.
Food for thought, no?
£16 billion for new EU nations.... can any one say BRIBE
Can anyone say "investment in our new companion countries"? Really, Wizard, I see no evidence that this is a bribe. After all, the money was
announced
after the excession companies agreed to the Constitution. It's true that several of the countries had opposed the Constitution in
the past - but they are publicly-recorded and very clear reasons why they felt, in the end, that they agreed with it. This, I'm afraid, is smoke
where there is no fire - and the proof of that is that the fact is buried away in a closing paragraph of an obscure Telegraph article.
And, by the way, if the EU
is being so generous with subsidy money, don't you think we should be getting some of it, not relying on crippled
trade with the EU and the same old disadvantageous trade with the US for our cash?
*Source: a United Nations World Investment Report which I can't find a link to on the net, but I have sitting on the desk in front of me. Trust
me.