Does the uk belong into europe

[somebloke 0]

Or here

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

what a rethorical diarrhea! If you see no point in britain acquiring the Euro then educate yourself in economics first, cause that is THE ONLY basis of judging properly.

Australia? What kind of example is that?

You are an island, does the US not have any islands?

You consider the UK to be more cultural diverse than the US? Ouch!

The Nazis again. Hell yes you are right! Trust me the new summer-collection of Panzer is already on the production line. Every EURO coin is in fact nothing else than a tiny explosive device. Once UK imports the euro we will blast the country into pieces and come over to steal your belongings and make love to your pets!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]why don't they go ask Russia?.

Russia asked the EU for tighter relations recently and a future prospect of Russia is the union with the EU.

[Pathy 0]

OK as someone who does Economics, there are both Economic arguments for and against intergration. The main argument against becoming part of europe is flexability of labour.

The UK has the lowest unemployment rate in the the Western world. It also has the worst job protection and benefits system, and some of the weakest trade unions. Co-incidence? No. Lack of job protection means that labour markets work alot better. If a firm needs to hire or fire to react to a change in the market, it can do so relatively quickly. Now if we were to go into Europe, we would suddenly find that this changes. Unemployment is the result, with all the negative effects that brings.

However, there are also arguments for. Economies of scale, increased competition, standardisation of prices (people from the UK, notice how our car prices have fallen? Thats because of increased intergration in Europe meaning prices are more standardised across the continent.....), but to name a few.

Its a tough call to make, would we be better off in? I think we can only truly find the answer when we make our mind up to either commit or not. Most Economists seem to think that in the short run we will loose out, but in the long run, we will see gains from it. I agree, and i would commit Britain to it. Remember, we are not exactly giving up our Nationality......

Somebloke, a State is a Country, it comes from Nation States. The USA is not actually itself a nation state. Its a union of lots of different nation states. The EU is not trying to imitate the US, it is try to economically and politically intergrate Europe in order to benefit Europe. Infact reading your post do you even live in Britain? How old are you mate? Do you really think Britains unity comes from being bombed in WW2?

Oh and CAP should be abolished totally......

[Bordoy 0]

No, dont want to get any closer ties with EU with this new constitution.

United States of Europe in every part apart from name.

Long live the pound sterling.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

No, dont want to get any closer ties with EU with this new constitution.

United States of Europe in every part apart from name.

Long live the pound sterling.

As far as I know, the proposed constitution will not generate 'closer ties' with anyone. The constitution itself is more about streamlining the way in which the union works. Getting rid of all the little documents and just having one large blanket one in other words. Personally, I think blocking the ratification of the constitution would be a case of 'cuttting ones nose of to spite your face' so to speak.

Especially the current conservative party standpoint of, 'we will block the constitution full stop', which is just playing to the irrational paranoia of SOME of the general public. Bloody knee-jerk politics.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that there is a chance in hell that it will pass? The impression that I get is that the British are in general so hateful and suspicious about everything even remotely connected to the EU that nothing that furthers the European cooperation could even come close to passing.

Yes it has more than a chance in hell of passing, much more, though its a great gamble. Rupert Murdoch has a lot to answer for but despite his papers there are lots of different views on the EU and not one monolithic one. Most of the people ive spoken to about it have actually been cautiously positive except on the question of joining the Euro in the near future which is quite unpopular due to the strength of the economy (we havent had if so good for ages so people see it as a somewhat dangerous risk). The vote will likely not take place for another 18 months- 2 years. Easily enough time to swing public opinion one way or the other (most people currently being quite undecided with general reservations).

And actually it doesnt matter practically what most people think. Only what most people who will actually vote think.

[Pathy 0]

I think the problem is, Britain is in a very good economic situation at the moment as it is. And its risking that very good situation to get further into the EU.

Its probably going to hit us in the short run but benefit us in the long run, the opportunity cost should be worth it.

[Capitaine Haddock 0]

As a Frenchman born in Spain and living in the UK, what can I say... I feel my country is the EU and it's about time we have a Constitution and a President.

Good thing is that I'm completely convinced that it's just a question of time. It might take 10, 20 or 50 years, but the EU will become a single country eventually. Just think of how much things have changed in the last 60 years...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Good points Pathy. My friends in Business also seem to think the arguments are complex (more than Albert is making out). You have pointed out some of the plusses of integration yet also that increasing integration with europe means for instance changing working practices in the UK which for sure will have effects on the economy.

There are also other complex effects on everyday life more or less related to business (the supremacy of EU laws over national and regulations in health and safety for instance) and some that maybe simply matters of principle. The fact is that we have not yet had a full public debate on the merits and pitfalls of EU integration in the UK. Its hardly surprising if there have been some misconceptions or a lack of understanding (or even interest) so far.

This is in fact a great opportunity to have a long discussion and information drive in the media and in everyday life about this subject. Then the people will decide what they think. Rejecting the constitution could be portrayed as a virtual opting out of the EU and voting for could be seen as an endorsement of a new level of integration. It will at least give people pause for thought.

[somebloke 0]

I say to hell with the EU and it's Euro. I'll go edit my other posts.

[somebloke 0]

Anyway, isn't this a question directed mainly at Brits and non EU countries. It's up to us to decide, not to the rest of the world.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well if youre sixteen you probably wont be able to vote when it comes to it anyway, ('actually it doesnt matter practically what most people think. Only what most people who will actually vote think.')

[Pathy 0]

I think at the moment the problem we are facing is a relatively uneducated public. Now if every school kid was made to study economics..........

Nah seriously, JohnWayne, look at most posts here, they are making snap judgements based on prejudices and what they THINK is going to happen, as told by the Sun. (which has a reading age of 8 or there-abouts, dont take it what it says as fact.) And that is what is going to prevent any serious debate on the Pro's and Cons, most people here cant actually argue economically (or even politically) for or against (and lets not forget its mainly an economic union), they just come up with typically xenophobic comments.

Economically, there are both +'s and -'s to joining the EU, more than Albert would have people believe. It will be interesting to see what happens when he comes and finds someone else who knows thier Economic theory too well for him to bluff it in such simple terms.

Trouble is, its all so complex that it is hard for ANYONE to accurately predict the effects, because nobody can take into account every single factor.

[Pathy 0]

Well if youre sixteen you probably wont be able to vote when it comes to it anyway

Thank god for that.

<edit> Bored and reading all the way through the thread, im actually convinced that Albert doesnt know as much as he seems to the average person about economics, while he may have a large FACTUAL knowledge to bowl you over with, his theory seems weak.

[denoir 0]

Trouble is, its all so complex that it is hard for ANYONE to accurately predict the effects, because nobody can take into account every single factor.

Absolutely, but as I see it, you subscribe to an idea. We have the chance to make EU to what we want it to be. I see it as a very exciting project. But it is work in progress! Many things today are completely messed up. The CAP being one of them. But that's normal. It's not an easy process and we're bound to make many mistakes. But in principle you must surely agree that working together is desirable. It is however work in progress. So now is not the time to complain, but to roll up the sleaves and make EU into what we want it to be.

Basically the fundamentals are equal in all European countries. We build on trade, democracy and human rights. And it is quite possible.

Just look at the Franco-German love affair. Who would have thought it to be possible? Historically they have never been allies and have originally vastly different national interest. Yet through some visionary leaders their relationship has evolved into something very friendly and productive. Today, you can more or less count on that they agree on everything. Did the French and German population get screwed to make this deal? I'd say absolutely not. The citizens are very delighted about their new friends.

And that should be the goal for Europe. Yes, we have a history of conflicts. Yes we have some different views on things and some variation in national ideals. If we however develop this thing together, our interests will naturally merge. Together we are stronger both economically and politically. And I think Europe can set the standard of how a group of nations with a history full of war and killing can come together and form a group that is not only economically strong, but who is an exemplary leader in peaceful humanist politics. That is my vision of the EU and that is what I want to work on.

[Bordoy 0]

As a Frenchman born in Spain and living in the UK, what can I say... I feel my country is the EU and it's about time we have a Constitution and a President.

Good thing is that I'm completely convinced that it's just a question of time. It might take 10, 20 or 50 years, but the EU will become a single country eventually. Just think of how much things have changed in the last 60 years...

Becoming a single country, thats what i'm worried about. I don't want to get ruled by the French, Germans or Belgiums.

How things have changed?

Collapse of League of Nations (possibly more then 60 years ago, i'm not and historian)

WW2

War in Balkans

Terroism

anything else?

[Pathy 0]

Hmm well, we have gone from Europe constantly being at each others throats from as far back as you want to go, to war between European states being almost an impossibility.

Incidentally the LON failed because the US never joined it, and France and Britain just didnt have the power to force things thru. Imagine a UN without the USA in and you have the LON.

And once again i prematurely post. Right, what i also meant to say is, we wouldnt be surrendering all our law making ability. As any country has power of Veto, we have categorically refused to allow the EU control over our tax rates, our armed forces, ect.

Think about the USA. Although there is federal law, each state also has different laws, eg Texas, murders can face capital punishment,whereas other parts they cant. Europe would be somewhat like this, we would still make the majority of our own law.

I cant remember what the principle is called, but it means, unless it affects everyone in Europe the decision is taken at a local as possible level.

Eg, Congestion charging in London, would be set by London, because those are the people it affects. Something that affects the whole of Britain would be taken at State government level, something that affects the WHOLE of Europe (EU tariffs on a good for instance) would be taken at a European level.

The point is, paranoia about being ruled by Germans or French is unfounded, only decisions affecting the whole of Europe would be taken for us, and even then, we would still have a say.......

[denoir 0]

Becoming a single country, thats what i'm worried about. I don't want to get ruled by the French, Germans or Belgiums.

Nope. You'll be ruling Frnace, Germany and Belgium. Is that so bad?

It's typical empty rethorics. Define "ruled by". Who are you ruled by now? Last I checked the European Union was noot the "Franco-German-Beligian Union Conspiracy to Subdue The Poor British". You'll be part of a larger group yes but you will also have power there. I can understand some scepticism coming from smaller countries. But please, Britian is one of the largest countries meaning that you will have very much influence. And this time your influence won't just be restricted to your little island, but to the whole of Europe.

Your ancestors understood that perfectly when they went around occupying France et al. It's just now that we do it in a fair peaceful way.

Quote[/b] ]How things have changed?

Apart from the Balkans there has been peace for over 50 years. It's an all time record in Europe. IIRC the longest period before was slightly less than 20 years. This is the most peace we've had since the roman empire. And it doesn't exactly look like we're going to be fighting tomorrow, now is it?

[Bordoy 0]

Becoming a single country, thats what i'm worried about. I don't want to get ruled by the French, Germans or Belgiums.

Nope. You'll be ruling Frnace, Germany and Belgium. Is that so bad?  

It's typical empty rethorics. Define "ruled by". Who are you ruled by now? Last I checked the European Union was noot the "Franco-German-Beligian Union Conspiracy to Subdue The Poor British". You'll be part of a larger group yes but you will also have power there. I can understand some scepticism coming from smaller countries. But please, Britian is one of the largest countries meaning that you will have very much influence. And this time your influence won't just be restricted to your little island, but to the whole of Europe.

Your ancestors understood that perfectly when they went around occupying France et al. It's just now that we do it in  a fair peaceful way.

The president wont be English. More then likely from Belgium. I know its not a conspiracy (would we know its a conspiracy if its a conspiracy, as conspiracies are usually private and classified) but there the main groups. Would the UK have representatives from Labour, Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties? (and other ones, what other ones?)

[raedor 8]

@albert: you should update your CIA

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]Last I checked the European Union was noot the "Franco-German-Beligian Union Conspiracy to Subdue The Poor British

Yet some people throughout the EU, not only British, percieve a certain Franco-German bias. Thats a PR problem that needs addressing at the very least if not a positive barrier to greater cooperation.

Also there is the question of what this European 'dream' or 'idea' actually is (an open question, usually answered with broad rheatoric aimed at concensus building- as is necessary when faced with the diversity of a continent- yet what the sum of the details will actually come to mean is not clear for many).

-

Quote[/b] ]Yes we have some different views on things and some variation in national ideals

It is mainly that this fact is reflected in the EU~nation state arrangements that i am concerned about. I agree with the last posts broadly though (theres not much to disagree with).

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Bordoy-

Quote[/b] ]Would the UK have representatives from Labour, Conservative and Liberal-Democrat parties?

Yes, even the conservatives (at least they are represented now).

[Capitaine Haddock 0]

Becoming a single country, thats what i'm worried about. I don't want to get ruled by the French, Germans or Belgiums.

How things have changed?

I wonder where does that myth come from...

In the EU you are not ruled by other countries in the same way Oregon is not ruled by Florida.

How things have changed? Well... I think going form a full-war scenario to a common market, freedom of movement and international common law says it all. The Constitution is just the next logical step in a long chain of changes.

[denoir 0]

The referendum in Britain is a big issue. If there is a no, there will be a shitload of trouble. On the news they said that the bookies are setting the odds currently 6 to 1 for a no.

To be ratified, the constitution needs approval from all 25 countries. A British no means that it will fall and that in turn leaves us with the current Nice treaty. The big problem with that is that it isn't accomodated for the expansion. The number of comissioners has not been regulated. In effect this means that the EU will be completely paralyzed. The eurosceptics should hold their celebrations as this has direct and very immidiate consequences on all member states as a huge number of laws are already handled by the EU. Worst case scenario, we can talk about a complete political and economic collapse.

This is of course not an option so they will have a backup plan. This will probably be an alternative constitution separating the EU into an A and one B league. This is something that has been advocated partly by France and Germany. The A league would consist of the EU-enthusiastic and would go fast to a common tax policy, comon foregin policy and a common defence. The B league would go in a slower pace. Britain has been very much against such a thing and always wanted the whole EU moving in the same pace. This is because they know that they could not get the popular support for radical changes but that they would probably get there one day anyhow, just in a much slower pace. This in effect would mean France and Germany paving the road for the first time, making all the decisions. Britain would be left with a take-it-or-leave-it choice which it probably would have to take anyway. So in effect by lagging behind it would be shutting itself off from the decision process.

At the same time some form of bribe to Britain to accept the constitution is more or less out of the question. The constitution does not contain any things that Britain is upset about and in other areas it has already gotten a number of exceptions. There is simply nothing more to offer. So it's crunch time. Therefor the vote is not just about the constitution but very much about the structure of the future EU.