Does the uk belong into europe

[acidcrash 0]

I just want to say:Uk politic is more with USA,not so much with EU,so I think UK is not belong into EU

politicians are politicians no matter where they coem from, talk at each other and never seen to achieve much of anything...

anyway, before denoir challenges me on this im gonna do a runner

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Okay besides the concept that the Euro may faciliate company takeovers please also take into consideration that it enables powerful fusions between companies. Since the french and the germans have basically combined most of their military developments they are more competitive on the global market and it didnt take a year for europe to overtake the US in weapon exports (source: stokholm institute of peace-research (Sipri) source .

And please dont reply here with arguments such as that we are dealing with weapons more freely than the US does. We are talking about fully legal business here. More than 80% of all weapons exported from the EU came from France, UK and Germany. Dont tell me that if even british companies would join the club that we could create several of the largest military suppliers in the world. Exports would go up, Development costs would go down, new jobs could be created and one or the other additional penny would go into new developments for our european armies. I dont even want to know what the Eurofighter would have costed if the project would have been started after the french and german companies had merged. And talking about planes and choppers. There the US is still ahead of us and implementing some british companies would definetly guarantee us the greates piece of the cake in the future. But I guess some people rather sit in British-parts only plane than in a better and cheaper "made in europe" fighter!

[Jinef 2]

I am ashamed of my country's mass media.

[denoir 0]

It's not just weapons it is exactly everything. Politics is to a large part market driven. There is a good reason why we have large global corporations. It's simply good business to cooperate on things on this level.

There has to be a political side to it to primarily facilitate but also regulate transnational corporations. A common work market, a common currency, common laws etc all facilitate business. At the same time we have to handle these changes on a social level. Before the EU all our laws were on a national level. This gave corporations a way of circumventing layers of social protection that are embedded in the national systems. Buisiness does what is good for business. People do however value other things than money. That's where government comes in. And we can't have multinational corporations while sticking with national governments. The concept of a national government has to be adapted to meet the globalization development. And the bottom line there is that the business globalization is inevitable as it is profitable. If you choose not to go beyond the nation-state model for goverments then you'll ultimately get screwed both business-wise as well as socially.

Why Europe? Because Europe trades with Europe. If we take Britain as an example - about 80% of its trade is done with other EU countries.  Because European countries have similar political and ideological foundations.

As for examples, if we take something more positive than weapons trade, take a look at Airbus. Combining the strenght of European countries resulted in Airbus beating the US flagship Boeing in sales. Just 10 years ago it would have been unimaginable.

No single European country is strong enough to be a major player on the global market. With its huge population and industry the US is the given leader. By combining the strengths of the European countries we can put up a fight. This will not only be good for the European industry, but it will as well create healthy competition which will benefit the consumers everywhere in the world.

What about other stuff like defence? Well, today the EU countries spend more money on the military than the US. We have a larger military in number of men, planes, tanks etc And what are the results we have? Not much to show for. Sure Britain and France have some form military power, but they pay dearly for it and get much less than what the US has. It's simply not cost efficient. And it's not bloody likely that we would be fighting on different sides of a conflict, so what we practice today is an enormous waste of money. Instead of doing things once, we do the same things 25 times.

There is of course a political cost to it. To have a military, you need a common foregin policy. For instance had there been a common EU defence, there would be no British troops in Iraq now. That's the price. There was something like 80-85% opposition to the war among EU citizens so it is very clear what the decision would have been. If all of Luxemburg really thinks we should invade say Australia and the rest of the EU disagrees, then there would be no invasion. If at least  50% of the EU countries representing at least 60% of the EU population voted for something then the whole EU would have to act. If for instance everybody except Luxemburg wanted to invade Australia then Luxemburg would have to follow suit. That's the price you pay. But those are the workings of a normal democratic system. (It's possible that in questions like war every country would have a veto right, but that's just speculation as no common EU defence exists yet)

[theavonlady 2]

They might not want to themselves but Brits are all for Luvania join the EU:

Quote[/b] ]One in 10 Britons welcome 'Luvania' to EU family

9 minutes ago

LONDON (AFP) - Around one in 10 people in Britain are looking forward to Luvania joining the European Union this weekend. That's right, Luvania.

Telcoms provider One.Tel invited participants in an marketing survey to identify the 10 EU accession nations -- and cheekily added fictional Luvania to the list as a red herring.

Eight percent of all 2,500 respondents plumped for the mythical country -- a proportion that went up to nine percent among Scots, and 11 percent among over-50s.

"People aren't generally aware," One.Tel spokesman Carol Barnes said Thursday. "They're more involved in their day-to-day lives rather than the bigger picture of what is going on in the EU."

The online survey, conducted by One.Tel to gauge potential international calling trends after EU enlargement, also revealed that 15 percent think Austria is among the EU newcomers. It actually joined in 1995.

Ignorance about the EU is a problem in Britain, with its people always the most likely to reply "don't know" in regular Eurobarometer polls conducted for the European Commission.

Hail to Freedonia - land of the brave and free!

[Hit_Sqd_Day 0]

Well i didnt have time to read the whole threat, but all i can say is:

We all live on one planet, and if that gets fucked we all are fucked.

Problem is the closed minded people in every country. Unitl everybody drops down his somehow old prejudices. They dont fit for everybody in the country your going against anyways.

What people need to understand that its not a country causing trouble its the minority of people in it that cause it and might have a higher influence than the majority.

I am german, but i am in contact to people all over the world.

And my personal result:

At the bottom line we all got the same problems, our ingnorance is just to great to see those of my neighbour.

As long as anybody feels like something better than the other we wont be one world.

I am not white, not red neither black nore yellow, i combine all colors in my heart. I not stupid and not intelligent. And you can like me or not but i am a human being like everybody else, so treat me as you wanted to be treated by others.

Be open for new things and dont turn away from a stranger, cause he might would be your best friend if you would just talk to him.

Lets get united, no by politicians but in our hearts!!!!

The politicians want change our hearts, thats up to everybody on its own.

May the force be with this planet.

Daywalker

[Gollum1 0]

As long as anybody feels like something better than the other we wont be one world.

= Forever.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Michael Jackson said the same, and see what he did to those poor little children.

Nah all nonesense!

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

i dont think so

[Pathy 0]

Hmm i dont see the UK actually being anti Europe. Its just sensationalist tabloids and right wing groups.

*resists urge to start telling Michael Jackson jokes*

And as a wannabe economist i ought to say that yes, the EU combined is the biggest consumer group in the world, with a higher population than the USA and a higher GDP. The benefits of European intergration far outwieght the losses. In the short run, i do expect negative effects, but the long run effects of intergration are positive. We must sacrifice the short term for long term gain. Europe has the potential to overtake the USA as the worlds leading nation state, but, we have more difficulties in Europe than America did when it formed. We have language differences. Major ones. 25 countries (inc the accession ones) each with thier own language, culture and history. That history often involves bloody wars verses the other countries. That may all be in the past but its still a subconcious barrier in peoples minds. Its a challange to think past that.......one i hope can be overcome.

[Hit_Sqd_Day 0]

Hi again,

in my opinion the UK is part of Europe already, not just continental even though its an island its still part of europe.

And political since the UK is part of the EU, they just dont have the Euro for the currency like some other countries.

Although there might be guys thinking the UK be just for its on, there might be enough british thinking the opposite:)

And think of the potential a united europe would have if we were really uniteted. But that will take another 20 years i guess.

[Pathy 0]

I just want to say:Uk politic is more with USA,not so much with EU,so I think UK is not belong into EU

I'd prefer to be part of Europe than the US......

[Harnu 0]

I say all of Europe belongs to the UK, and the UK belongs to the US  

So I guess that means:

"All your base belong to us"  

Anyway, as far as recently goes, I think the UK is leaning more towards the US. But I'm sure if their economy slumps and then they have something to gain by joining the EU, they'll become very European

[Pathy 0]

I say all of Europe belongs to the UK, and the UK belongs to the US  

So I guess that means:

"All your base belong to us"  

Anyway, as far as recently goes, I think the UK is leaning more towards the US.  But I'm sure if their economy slumps and then they have something to gain by joining the EU, they'll become very European  

Nah what you mean is Tony Blair and George Bush have a "special" relationship, but as soon as they have a lovers tiff we will be more European.......

[denoir 0]

Britain is Europe both geographically, socially and politically.

However.. Tony + George = true love. Can't stand in the way of true love, can you?

[ozanzac 0]

However.. Tony + George = true love. Can't stand in the way of true love, can you?  

LOL!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Britain is indeed politically more european. In fact it's really only the issue of 'defence' ('War against Terror', 'rogue states' and such) that brings them together (most notably sept 11 itself).

On issues like capital punishment, global warming, international law (notably minus Iraq) and social welfare Tony And George are on quite opposite ends of the political spectrum. With all that taken into account their relationship is quite surprising.

Da-da-dum It must be love, lurve, love daa-dum-doom, nothing more, nothing less, love is the best.

*ahm*

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]A common work market, a common currency, common laws etc all facilitate business. At the same time we have to handle these changes on a social level. Before the EU all our laws were on a national level. This gave corporations a way of circumventing layers of social protection that are embedded in the national systems.

You mean going to the country with the least restrictive laws?

Yet Britains flexible jobs market for example may be argued to be a part of its economic success at the moment and people seem quite happy with the status quo (no great demonstrations on the streets for more continental style restrictions on companies hiring and firing rights). Why would Britain want to impose economically harmful social protections any more than other countries would want to adopt British style measures? Why the need for one global rule? (rheatorical question, i am stating that there is no such need)

If EU citizens want to work in Britain they can make a decision to do so based on their acceptance of British employment laws just as if i want to work in Germany or France i can make a decision based on my willingness to work to the employment rules of those coutries.

On some issues it may be quite necessary and logical to have laws that apply throughout europe. For others it does not necessarily follow that one law throughout the EU is necessary or desirable (at least at the present moment). Anyway i understand this is one of Blairs 'red line' issues on which there will still be national sovereignty.

Quote[/b] ] Buisiness does what is good for business. People do however value other things than money. That's where government comes in. And we can't have multinational corporations while sticking with national governments. The concept of a national government has to be adapted to meet the globalization development.

Adapted yes, but we clearly can stick with national governments whilst having multinational corporations (at least in the near future). We simply need a certain level of international cooperation, for which the EU is great.

However, there is a line where cooperation becomes synthesis. Is the EU about cooperation between nation states or instead total synthesis into a whole? Over the long term a synthesis may be the logical and almost inevitable result of the European Union but that does not mean that today is the time for turning the EU in that direction. There are many who object both in this country and elsewhere to the idea of turning the EU in the near future into the kind of federal europe that diminishes the powers of nations to regulate those of their affairs which they regard as crucial, and

certainly would object to such a change without at least being further consulted.

Perhaps this constitution is not directly federalising Europe but at the very least seems to be a step in that direction. How big a step towards the federalisation of Europe should be taken at this  moment is an open question. In some areas I am happy to see great strides but in other areas I strongly feel that nations should keep control for the present. The EU is not ready institutionally or to a great extent culturally for the pooling of sovereignty on all issues.

You mention defence and a common foreign policy. Iraq is one thing, rather a war of choice, but what about when a particular nation feels its national interests to be vitally threatened (perhaps due to foreign invasion or coup) and yet may not have the support of a majority of the EU? Such a scenario is not totally unthinkable. A number of EU nations have overseas territories, what would have happened we must wonder if Britain had been part of a common EU foreign policy when the Falklands was invaded (perhaps with a continentally unpopular Thatcher like government)? It is possible Britain would have felt it necessary to opt out of the common foreign policy and if necessary suspend membership of the EU. A level of national control over nationally sensitive issues is still necessary right now to prevent such occurrences.

France and other countries could potentially be put in a similar position in the future and im far from confident that the kind of spirit of Europe wide camaraderie yet exists such that a common European foreign policy would be worth its name or the paper its written on when some obscure French or Dutch overseas territory or ally was attacked or threatened in some quagmire of local politics.

. I am all for European cooperation at this time. But the time is not ripe for a total union in the form of one European government.

Whats the rush? European integration looks set to increase with time (barring global economic collapse or some such catastrophe) so rushing changes in the form of requirements for uniformity will only serve to alienate large segments of the EUs population from that very project. Impatience would most likely be counterproductive and I have always conceived of the EU working best slowly, winning consent, perhaps almost imperceptibly over time. With visible signs such as the introduction of the Euro as currency in willing nations, the idea of the EU will slowly seep into peoples minds so that in fifty years people in the union will not be able to conceive of a national existence outside of it (so goes the hope).

I far prefer that to what can be portrayed here as a somewhat clumsy attempt at forcing unwanted bureaucracy on a prosperous and decently regulated country. Whether or not that characterisation is quite fair, that it can be made at all seems to indicate that the idea of, or feeling of necessity for, the EU has not yet reached the critical level. Its not the British peoples fault that they do not feel greater uncritical enthusiasm for the EU. They are not genetically predisposed against liking the EU but the war of ideas in the media and in politics has certainly not been won here by the pro-federalists. In fact they are hardly even noticeable as a force in the UK. If there are multiple levels of EU membership then so be it. Its preferable to forcing unwanted changes on unwilling populations. There is already the Euro/non Euro zone division and yet the EU seems to have avoided self destruction.

[Pathy 0]

Thats a hell of a long post to read. But you are right about the job markets. Britains flexability is why the UK has about a 4% Unemployment rate, while france and particually germany have over double.......

Closer intergration is a good thing, but as the man says, the time is not right for total intergration.

Anyway, its not the UK that is imposing a 7 year ban on immigrant workers from the accession countries and flouting the EU rules on inflation (or is it interest?) rates (and refusing to pay the EU fine for it) *cough*Germany*cough*

[denoir 0]

You mean going to the country with the least restrictive laws?

Yeah, or more likely to distribute the business across countries so that they minimize their cost for labour, taxes, pollution etc

Basically they'll put the polluting part of their industry in the country that has the least strict environmental laws. They'll employ people in the country that has the least protection for workers amd to bussines where they pay the lowest taxes.

Quote[/b] ]Yet Britains flexible jobs market for example may be argued to be a part of its economic success at the moment and people seem quite happy with the status quo (no great demonstrations on the streets for more continental style restrictions on companies hiring and firing rights). Why would Britain want to impose economically harmful social protections any more than other countries would want to adopt British style measures? Why the need for one global rule? (rheatorical question, i am stating that there is no such need)

Let's take a look at the proposed constitution:

[*] Protection of personal data

(companies may not demand that you hand over irrelevant personal data and they have no right giving out your personal data)

[*] Freedom of assmbly and association

(unions etc)

[*] Freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work

[*] Non-discrimination

[*] Equality between men and women

[*] Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking

(you have to inform the employees in good time before firing them)

[*] Right of collectiv bargaining and action

(unions can represent workers)

[*] Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal

(if you've been fired because you won't sleep with your boss, you have the right to a law suit)

[*] Fair and just working conditions

(limitation to the number of working hours as well as working conditions which respect health, safety and dignity)

[*] Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work

So, which of the above do the British have a problem with? On that note, how many of the British people do you think have even bothered to find out what the constitution says on the labour laws?

Now to answer your question: Why do we have laws overall? Why do the same labour laws apply in London as in Liverpool? I'm sure Liverpool would benefit economically from allowing slavery.

The point of the constitution is to encapsulate the cultural and social values that are common for all Europe. Such values include social security and worker protection. Britian may be on the less restrictive side of things but is still very far from a libertrarian society like America.

Quote[/b] ]If EU citizens want to work in Britain they can make a decision to do so based on their acceptance of British employment laws just as if i want to work in Germany or France i can make a decision based on my willingness to work to the employment rules of those coutries.

That still applies. We're talking about the very basics here - the right to not be discriminated etc Beyond that there will of course be national rules that regulate.

Quote[/b] ]On some issues it may be quite necessary and logical to have laws that apply throughout europe. For others it does not necessarily follow that one law throughout the EU is necessary or desirable (at least at the present moment). Anyway i understand this is one of Blairs 'red line' issues on which there will still be national sovereignty.

The EU works on the principle (as defined in both Nice and the new constitution) of making common laws when it is absolutely necessary while leaving the rest to national law.

Quote[/b] ]However, there is a line where cooperation becomes synthesis. Is the EU about cooperation between nation states or instead total synthesis into a whole? Over the long term a synthesis may be the logical and almost inevitable result of the European Union but that does not mean that today is the time for turning the EU in that direction.

Ah, yes, and this is where you get screwed. For the British it may not seem like a necessary step now, but for many of the other major players it does. They want to do it, with or without you. Britain rejecting the constitution is the wet dream for the federalists. In effect that woul mean that two sets of constitution would be drawn. One very federalist and one very vague. The EU would be split into two leagues. The federalists see this as an opportunity to make all the definitions without British interference. Everybody knows that Britian will sooner or later have to take the full step. And by then everything will already be defined. By France, Germany, Italy et al Britain won't have a say.

So either you can accept changes now that you feel are too fast but which you had a say in, or you can buy the whole package later as defined by others.

Quote[/b] ]Perhaps this constitution is not directly federalising Europe but at the very least seems to be a step in that direction. How big a step towards the federalisation of Europe should be taken at this  moment is an open question. In some areas I am happy to see great strides but in other areas I strongly feel that nations should keep control for the present. The EU is not ready institutionally or to a great extent culturally for the pooling of sovereignty on all issues.

Actually, this constitution is much more favourable to you than to the federalists. It does not activate a common foregin policy, it does not activate a common defence and it does not include tax harmonization. Those three issues are activated according to the constitution if and only if all countries agree to it. In effect with this constitution Britain can delay things like a common foregin policy as long as it likes. From a federalist point of view this is a matter of great concern and that's why they won't be too upset if Britain says no. Sure, they'll shed some crocodile tears and complain about the British sabotaging the whole thing, but in effect it paves the road for the EU believers to define things as they see fit without British interference.

Quote[/b] ]You mention defence and a common foreign policy. Iraq is one thing, rather a war of choice, but what about when a particular nation feels its national interests to be vitally threatened (perhaps due to foreign invasion or coup) and yet may not have the support of a majority of the EU? Such a scenario is not totally unthinkable. A number of EU nations have overseas territories, what would have happened we must wonder if Britain had been part of a common EU foreign policy when the Falklands was invaded (perhaps with a continentally unpopular Thatcher like government)? It is possible Britain would have felt it necessary to opt out of the common foreign policy and if necessary suspend membership of the EU.

If we had a common defence, a single EU country would simply not be able to go to war all by itself. The military resources would be shared  and any such actions would be impossible. It is not so radical at all. The EU was built from the Steel & Coal union that was designed specifically for the purpose of making it impossible for European nations to go to war with each other. As I see it, this is just an extension.

As for the Falklands, the EU would not have any choice but to get involved as the constitution is very strict on mutual defence of territorial integrity.

Quote[/b] ]I far prefer that to what can be portrayed here as a somewhat clumsy attempt at forcing unwanted bureaucracy on a prosperous and decently regulated country. Whether or not that characterisation is quite fair, that it can be made at all seems to indicate that the idea of, or feeling of necessity for, the EU has not yet reached the critical level. Its not the British peoples fault that they do not feel greater uncritical enthusiasm for the EU. They are not genetically predisposed against liking the EU but the war of ideas in the media and in politics has certainly not been won here by the pro-federalists. In fact they are hardly even noticeable as a force in the UK. If there are multiple levels of EU membership then so be it. Its preferable to forcing unwanted changes on unwilling populations. There is already the Euro/non Euro zone division and yet the EU seems to have avoided self destruction.

Read

this BBC article. I think it encapsulates the problem pretty well.

The British are unwilling because you have not had the rigth politicians. After WW2 the split between France and Germany was many orders of magnitude larger than the split between France and Britain. Today France and Germany are best pals. This form of agreement is unprecedented in European history. Why is that? Because they had a number of visionary leaders that recognized the real issues as opposed to petty differences. And they worked together over time forming a strong bond of solidarity and respect.

The British Empire on the other hand was falling apart. Your colonies gained independence and the once grand empire was reduced to one island off mainland Europe. Obviously the big political score would be nationalism to compensate for the drop in importance. So the name of the game has been an inflation in ego, rather than compromise and cooperation. You did not have visionary politicians that could focus the people on something positive, but used the EU to score domestic points. Attack France and Germany and the big unknown blob called the EU. Xenophobia is a proven and tested populistic method. Of course far from all British people see it like that, but a majority does. (sidenote: Sweden is for that matter not much better than Britain in that respect. Also big problems with inflated national ego)

The British have an unjustified anti-EU bias. The EU is an experiment. A brand new one. We can make it into exactly anything we want. It is in a very early construction phase. Attacking it now, as opposed to shaping it into something that we all like, is a direct display of that bias.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well im British and im not especially concerned with inflating the national ego, im more concerned with British people being able to continue to live in the way they have been able to, free from bureaucratic restriction in the form of excessive regulation. If that proves possible then i am happy.

I dont think its true that the British are blanket xenophobes to an unusual extent (beyond a minority of lager addled idiots), look at the coach of the English national team for instance hes a damn viking!  

Plus the favourite national dish is now the curry of the indian subcontinent. So its rather a question of whether the EU is seen as a negative threat to the freedoms that have traditionally been cherished in Britain or instead can be seen to positively provide value for the nation.

Anyway despite various misgivings i expect i will be voting yes (when Blair finally gets around to organising the referendum).

[Pathy 0]

I think mr Wayne is on the nail.

I will also be voting yes when the referendum comes around.

[Unhappy customer 0]

I don't blame the UK for not wanting to give up their national sovereignty so that they can be a member of a club that isn't looking out for the best interest of the UK at all, but demands that the UK contribute to the well being of the EU.

This is exactly why we shouldn't let the UN run the world. The first UN (League of Nations) was a huge failure, and the UN was cloned from this failure. Now it too has become a currupt failure. Libya is a member of the UN human rights commity <-- laugh. Members of the UN took bribes from Saddam so that he could use funds from the "oil for food" program to build more palaces. And we want to all give up our national sovereignty, and let these crooks control everything? No. Our current system of regionalized countries working together for the interests of their own people works fine.

[denoir 0]

I don't know how else to put it, but I would like to congratulate you Unahppy customer for writing the most idiotic post that I've read in a long long while.

[denoir 0]

So its rather a question of whether the EU is seen as a negative threat to the freedoms that have traditionally been cherished in Britain or instead can be seen to positively provide value for the nation.

Ah, but that's exactly what I'm talking about. Tell me, could you name a few of those 'cherished' freedoms that a British citizen would lose?

[Pathy 0]

I don't know how else to put it, but I would like to congratulate you Unahppy customer for writing the most idiotic post that I've read in a long long while.

I second that.