"conditions" This a silly stand for the UK to be setting conditions. The European Union does not need Britain quite as much as Britain needs the union.
Not all the Common Market's bugs were ironed out before it became the EU and started adding less similar countries--both better and worse than average.
Why UK citizens would want the EU grand assembly in Brussels to pass laws which Britains had never voted on is a puzzler.
One, the EU's sheer number of regulations vastly complicates and delays starting a new business in the UK, which already had no dearth of its own rules.
Two, for the EU rule-makers, not elected by Britains, to make rules governing Britains, who never had an effective way to comment on those rules, effectively disenfranchises Britains. The British have a lot more experience in democracy than the EU, so letting faceless bureaucracy of continental culture dictate to Britains makes no sense.
Britain's never entering the Schengen Agreement was rarely foresighted. The Schengen Agreement never foresaw more than a trickle of refugees into the EU. Now the refugee flood swamps immigration officials and EU assimilation capacity. Even welcoming Sweden where so many refugees sought to go, now asks other EU countries to take their fair share. Proportionate share is more accurate. What is fair about having to take people in numbers never dreamt?
Why UK citizens would want the EU grand assembly in Brussels to pass laws which Britains had never voted on is a puzzler.
One, the EU's sheer number of regulations vastly complicates and delays starting a new business in the UK, which already had no dearth of its own rules.
Two, for the EU rule-makers, not elected by Britains, to make rules governing Britains, who never had an effective way to comment on those rules, effectively disenfranchises Britains. The British have a lot more experience in democracy than the EU, so letting faceless bureaucracy of continental culture dictate to Britains makes no sense.
Britain's never entering the Schengen Agreement was rarely foresighted. The Schengen Agreement never foresaw more than a trickle of refugees into the EU. Now the refugee flood swamps immigration officials and EU assimilation capacity. Even welcoming Sweden where so many refugees sought to go, now asks other EU countries to take their fair share. Proportionate share is more accurate. What is fair about having to take people in numbers never dreamt?
1
Cameron promised the british people a vote on staying in the EU
The EU argument in the UK isn't purely about economics. It's the fact unelected judges, some of whom have never even held a judicial post can tell the democratically elected UK (or other EU) governments what to do against their wishes . It's the fact we can not control our own borders, or fish in our own waters. It's the fact we pay Billions of pounds into the EU which just gets wasted every single year and then the EU still wants more. It's about the UK population being able to elect a government which can do it's bidding not have OUR government saying we can't do things because the EU won't allow it. Germany has only been unified 150 years or so same with Italy, and other countries have had border changes, revolutions ect relatively recently so are maybe more OK with an EU superstate. The UK has been the UK for 300 years, England and Scotland have been nations for well over a thousand with institutions gradually evolving. We don't want to throw all that away for a United States of Europe where we could not decide our own destiny without the say so of others. Why is it OK for plucky Scotland to leave the UK, or Catalonia to leave Spain, but not the UK to leave the EU?
1
"Crucially, he said that Britain should have the right to restrict welfare entitlements, including benefits for low-income workers, for four years for migrants arriving from other European countries. That is widely regarded as his most difficult demand because it would be a departure from current European rules stipulating that citizens of all countries in the bloc should be treated equally — a point made by European officials on Tuesday."
The problem is that Britain is pretty much alone in not having a contributory welfare system. Welfare is available to everyone whether they have contributed or not whenever there is a need. Most of the other EU Countries already have a contributory system and is therefore, no hardship for them to treat all claimants equally.
The problem is that Britain is pretty much alone in not having a contributory welfare system. Welfare is available to everyone whether they have contributed or not whenever there is a need. Most of the other EU Countries already have a contributory system and is therefore, no hardship for them to treat all claimants equally.
The Irish fought for years to be independent. The same can be said for the Poles, the Croats, the Bosnians, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. The idea that all of these people will give up their national identities and sovereignty to be members in a trade block in which they are only pawns is absurd. Ask Israel if they want to join. If Israel joins then Britain should go full in. Is Israel says no, maybe it says something about the whole EU plan.
The UK has never wholeheartedly embraced the EU and has often been a reluctant member. It never adopted the Euro and clearly does not want to. It is not part of Schengen, and it frequently opposes EU regulations. Some may even view the UK as a thorn in the side of European unity. Moreover, it is hard to see the UK remaining intact were it to leave the EU, as Scotland would likely want to stay and would separate from the UK and adopt the Euro.
In a world where we see the consolidation of power in major powers, this is definitely the wrong time to want to go things alone. China is trying to extend its reach, Putin is trying to recreate the former Soviet Union, and the US will most probably attempt to assert its world leadership role when a new administration comes into power. The UK needs to see that there is strength in numbers, and only countries like the US or a union like the EU have the power to stand up to China and Russia.
While the UK, or more likely, England as it would soon become on leaving the EU, could still count on continuing friendship with the US and many of its former Commonwealth countries, this is not the same as being an integral part of a much larger cohesive force for world influence.
The UK should remember the words of the famous English poet John Donne, who wrote, among others, "No Man is an Island" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls."
In a world where we see the consolidation of power in major powers, this is definitely the wrong time to want to go things alone. China is trying to extend its reach, Putin is trying to recreate the former Soviet Union, and the US will most probably attempt to assert its world leadership role when a new administration comes into power. The UK needs to see that there is strength in numbers, and only countries like the US or a union like the EU have the power to stand up to China and Russia.
While the UK, or more likely, England as it would soon become on leaving the EU, could still count on continuing friendship with the US and many of its former Commonwealth countries, this is not the same as being an integral part of a much larger cohesive force for world influence.
The UK should remember the words of the famous English poet John Donne, who wrote, among others, "No Man is an Island" and "For Whom the Bell Tolls."
What has the EU as an entity ever done in the world? The EU cannot even agree on things in it's own back yard!
1
If Britain really wants to be mean-spirited to their handful of new arrivals they can very easily conform to EU-regulations on affording equal treatment for the citizens of all EU-countries simply by stating that all EU-citizens, including "newly-arrived" Brits (who have just been born), are ineligible for adult welfare benefits for unemployment, housing, etc.. This would be what the rest of Europe would expect of "perfidious Albion".
1
Handful of new arrivals? You are joking right? a population increase of 300k last year is more than a handful. And talk of perfidious Albion is a cheek. What exactly are the French authorities doing about the thousands of migrants in Calais who would rather live in filthy camps than stay in France? france has a duty process them but they do nothing.
1
Looking at all the duty free booze and tobacco that flow in from Calais in France - boxes and boxes of wine, bought by Brits on buses - when the Brits leave, then people will start to wake up and complain - because they got what they voted for. Sadly, the side that wants to stay in the EU isn't talking to Brits in terms they understand.
Bruce you are only 15 years too late with that comment. Duty free within the EU was abolished in 1999.
1
Sorry but the European Union just needs to tell Britain to go take refuge in its so-called "commonwealth" and get out of the Union it was never fully a part of anyway.
It's spent years with its toe in the water but never willing to jump in a swim as an equal partner with everyone else.
Britain is a Legend in its Own Mind. I say TTFN!
It's spent years with its toe in the water but never willing to jump in a swim as an equal partner with everyone else.
Britain is a Legend in its Own Mind. I say TTFN!
1
The rule is that one cannot discriminate against newcomers from the EU by applying a rule only to them. Then surely if one is against "spongers" from the EU, one can create a rule that most state benefits, except to children, will be paid based on having worked for a total of two years in the UK, and apply that to everyone in the UK. Almost everyone, including stay-at-home moms, have accumulated that amount of time at work in the UK. Now only EU citizens with jobs in the UK will be able to accumulate the right to benefits over a period of two years, as will the young of the UK. As the conservatives have already slashed support for young people over 18, they will hardly notice the difference. Further, everyone will have an incentive to report their first two years of income.
Hi,
I'm Polish living in UK for almost over 10 years now, and I'd like try to broaden your perspective on EU migrants living in UK.
I have my own little company that provides music for media and entertainment industries. The company is registered in UK, and so that's where I pay my contributions. However most of my clients are located not in UK, neither even in EU, but mostly in Canada and USA. Since I communicate with my clients trough the web, I could work from any place in the world; pay taxes anywhere in EU. But I really like UK! I'm finding British folks to be some of the most wholehearted, generous and empathetic people I've ever met, many of which are now my closest friends. And I have big respect and fascination with Britain's cultural heritage, peoples positive "you can do it" attitude and encouraging politeness. I'm also member of Church of England for over a year now, where few times a month I do charity work, primarily teaching British children playing instruments.
So I really hope things will be sorted towards openness, as in my view, world needs unity. It is the only certain and safe future.
I'm Polish living in UK for almost over 10 years now, and I'd like try to broaden your perspective on EU migrants living in UK.
I have my own little company that provides music for media and entertainment industries. The company is registered in UK, and so that's where I pay my contributions. However most of my clients are located not in UK, neither even in EU, but mostly in Canada and USA. Since I communicate with my clients trough the web, I could work from any place in the world; pay taxes anywhere in EU. But I really like UK! I'm finding British folks to be some of the most wholehearted, generous and empathetic people I've ever met, many of which are now my closest friends. And I have big respect and fascination with Britain's cultural heritage, peoples positive "you can do it" attitude and encouraging politeness. I'm also member of Church of England for over a year now, where few times a month I do charity work, primarily teaching British children playing instruments.
So I really hope things will be sorted towards openness, as in my view, world needs unity. It is the only certain and safe future.
10
The EU citizens who live near me are brilliant. They are much more hard working and polite than some of the benefit claiming Brits. This however doesn't change the fact the population of the UK grew by 300k plus again last year. That is unsustainable, we don't have the houses, schools, doctors etc to cope. If we could boot out the lazy, never done a days work in their lives Brits and replace them with hard working EU citizens it would be great, but we can't. We also can't keep having a population increase like it is so something has to give.
1
Here in the UK all we ever hear about is how undemocratic the EU is and yet recently the British government had an attempt to reduce tax credits for the working poor voted down by the unelected House of Lords. A good outcome, but you must admit, an odd state of affairs.
4
The one fact you fail to mention is the House of Lords are made up of British Citizens and they cannot make laws, just make the democratically elected Commons think again. This is totally different to being told what to do by un elected, mostly failed EU politicians. You do get that simple fact, right?
1
Since Europe is in the process of being overrun by unassimilatable Muslim "refugees" perhaps England would be wise to stay out of the EU which may soon become part of an Islamic Caliphate.
5
Charles W
Europe is shouldering the burden of refugees who once had homes in Afghanistan and Iraq before America invaded them creating a vacuum called ISIS. This beast has spread to Syria. We are taking in people whose lives have been destroyed. Perhaps you would like to offer Europe reparations?
Europe is shouldering the burden of refugees who once had homes in Afghanistan and Iraq before America invaded them creating a vacuum called ISIS. This beast has spread to Syria. We are taking in people whose lives have been destroyed. Perhaps you would like to offer Europe reparations?
2
Don't forget the UK... USA and the UK were spearheading the invasion. Hit, run, and let somebody else clean up the mess while they point and criticise.
3
I really hope Cameron's tactics will severe the UK more than Europe.
Severed UK will be a horror lab of liberalism, but severed EU will be a recipe for war. Choosing lesser evil.
Severed UK will be a horror lab of liberalism, but severed EU will be a recipe for war. Choosing lesser evil.
There are impressively measured responses here. For my own part, I think it would be stupid and shortsighted for Britain to leave the EU. Many of the problems perceived in the UK are ones that have their roots in Britain, rather than the EU. Sometimes the 'anti-EU' side sounds rather like a spoiled teenager insisting that everything he doesn't like is his parents' fault. When that teenager has to leave home and manage by himself, after a while he probably will be singing a different tune. Like many a parent, I almost want to see that happen 'just to show them', but I am very fond of Britain, and so I hope that never happens.
3
Malcolm NYC
It would be short sighted in the long term for the UK to leave Europe but Brussels needs reform. The Commissioners are all failed politicians in their own country's and manoeuvred INTO Brussels where they can do less harm.
The UKs problem is that it has an island nation mentality and forgets ithat the days of empire are long gone.
It would be short sighted in the long term for the UK to leave Europe but Brussels needs reform. The Commissioners are all failed politicians in their own country's and manoeuvred INTO Brussels where they can do less harm.
The UKs problem is that it has an island nation mentality and forgets ithat the days of empire are long gone.
2
The eastern European countries are very hypocritical. They do not want migrants coming from Syria yet are insistent that their countrymen have access to the UK. David Cameron should make it clear, if they do not acquiesce to more stringent controls on migration and benefits then the UK will leave the EU. When that happens they will have no access to the better lifestyle that they covet.
1
Being from the eastern EU country, I can't fathom where you got that idea. We let the immigrants in, but they don't want to either register or stay. Of course we couldn't handle millions (or even tens of thousands) as we are basically bankrupt (part of it is EU's doing), but we do our best to handle situation USA and UK caused, with not much help from the Lords except the request to 'secure borders'. How exactly? Shoot unarmed people? As for who gets the short end of the stick of the migration... rich EU countries benefit from our labour much more than you might think, and I'm not talking menial jobs. Go to any top US or UK university, see how many 'natives' you find teaching there.
The phrase "ever closer union" doesn't mean much, and the UK could easily keep the Pound until the year 3499 or so. How wise is it to ask for a binding definition? As long as the "Eurpean project" leading to the United States of Europe is taken seriously, the other EU countries could accept the discount negotiated by Mrs Thatcher in 1984. It was seen as temporary, motivated by the fact that the UK was then the second poorest of the ten members. Dutch citizens contribute (net, per capita) twice as much to the EU finances as the UK citizen. Cameron wants to continue this parasitic relationship forever? Expect an outcry of protest from the other members.
4
It's the usual "we ought to keep our privileges" stance: "Give us a bob (English slang word for a shilling coin) and we stay on the job!" of various British governments in regard to getting privileged treatment by their European partners. Europe has been abused to support the London-based British Finance Industry for too long. Good riddance to this kind of partnership. Let them go . . .
1
What about the lack of a total free market that the German government won't allow to protect German Industry? Or the German imposed austerity on the southern EU states, of the idiotic announcement from Frau Merkel that Germany welcomes all refugees ignoring other EU states wishes? But that's ok as long as the EU suits Germany al ist gut!
The PM is arrogant to think the UK is the only Oyster in the stew. They have always thought they are better then anyone so the special privileges comes with the territory. Not so fast. If the UK pulls out they lose big markets. Do not be blackmailed by the British bullies. Let go of the eleven countries you have under Colonialism first then talk stuff afterwards. Who needs them anyhow?
3
Oh dear, another US citizen coming out with a colonialism comment to bash the Brits. It amazes me how many US citizens have no sense of irony, when aiming those sorts of comments to the British (or French for that matter). I tell you what, the UK and France will give back whats left of Empire - who willing stay loyal to the Crown when the USA gives back all the land it invaded and pillaged in the 19th century to expand it's borders. Is that a deal?
Are we all that sure that Britons would actually vote to exit the EU? Scots were fighting for independence for hundreds of years and, when it came down to it, said 'no'. Finally, if Britons really WOULD like to exit, does it make any sense to try and keep them? Sooner or later, marriages of unwilling partners break up; the sooner the better.
2
For many Britons it is about about sovereignty not economics. The EU goal is 'ever closer union.' Power is taken away from the European nation-states and transferred to Brussels. Increasingly decisions are being imposed by Berlin. The ability of Britons to rule themselves is being slowly reduced and many want to turn the clock back, they don't want to be part of a federal superstate.
The US carefully guards its own sovereignty, many people are are paranoid about the UN. The US would not join an undemocratic club like the EU. It seems odd that the US insists that Britain remains part of the EU. Most European countries don't have a long track record with democracy so they don't really notice much difference.
The US carefully guards its own sovereignty, many people are are paranoid about the UN. The US would not join an undemocratic club like the EU. It seems odd that the US insists that Britain remains part of the EU. Most European countries don't have a long track record with democracy so they don't really notice much difference.
9
If I am British, or for that matter, anyone not German, I am going to support leaving the EU. The entire enterprise makes no sense. Eastern Europe joined to get loans from German banks but for wealthy nations, what do they get? A bunch of bureaucrats appointed by German bankers making policies that's only beneficial to German bankers. It is like the British Empire of old: in UK, there is democracy and workers protection but out in the colonies, companies call the shot.
Merkel is inviting unlimited immigration to EU to drive down workers salary and Germany is the only one with an industrial base big enough to benefit from cheap labor. The cost of servicing the migrants is socialized to all nations while all profit is privatized by German bankers.
Merkel is inviting unlimited immigration to EU to drive down workers salary and Germany is the only one with an industrial base big enough to benefit from cheap labor. The cost of servicing the migrants is socialized to all nations while all profit is privatized by German bankers.
11
Best comment! German Ambassador to USA told Charlie Rose the same thing, Germany needs more and cheaper labor. Simple as that. Business reaps profits, citizens support cheap immigrant labor with social platform of benefits. It is the same in USA: illegal immigration has driven down wages, devastated unions, enriched business while business owners throw the true costs of housing, feeding, providing medical attention to their underpaid labor force on the public welfare/subsidy. Then the conservative business owners hypocritically rail against taxes spent on public welfare! It's a cynical racket...
1
"The British remain split on the merits of EU membership"...
What merits? We're tied into one of the worst performing economic areas in the world with endemic corruption, our borders are open to millions of unskilled and unemployable migrants heading to our shores solely for welfare, and we can't even fish our own seas or farm our own land without permission from Brussels..
There are no benefits to being in the EU.
What merits? We're tied into one of the worst performing economic areas in the world with endemic corruption, our borders are open to millions of unskilled and unemployable migrants heading to our shores solely for welfare, and we can't even fish our own seas or farm our own land without permission from Brussels..
There are no benefits to being in the EU.
9
In the Canary Islands, South of England: Who cares! Actually no one. Europe was a mess after WWII and remains a mess. Across the European continent and in Britain, Scotland and Ireland too, the European Union looks more like shackles than union. From the continents point of view the English, et. al. look like spoiled children who want to take their toys and go home because no one will kow-tow to their one-sided rules. It's a lose-lose situation.
Britain is no longer a world power. For that matter neither is France, Spain, Germany, Italy or Greece. The Europeans are not ready for union that resembles anything like the United States. Nationalism and right wing extremism rule the day. The so-called European Bloc cannot act together if their nations depended upon it for economic and political survival. Pointedly, that is exactly what is at stake. Western Europe's survival as an economic and social, political group of nations acting in the interests and benefits of a union.
The new Russian Empire is about to explode in the East. The Balkans are still smoldering. Southern Europe, Germany and Greece are threatened by a wave of refugees that no one wants and no one wants to admit is as much a European NATO problem as it is a Mid-East problem.
If anything, Europe is once again sleepwalking into war and dissolution of even the Euro. Britain should withdraw from the Euro. But, the moment it does it must step up and once again become an international player and leader.
Britain is no longer a world power. For that matter neither is France, Spain, Germany, Italy or Greece. The Europeans are not ready for union that resembles anything like the United States. Nationalism and right wing extremism rule the day. The so-called European Bloc cannot act together if their nations depended upon it for economic and political survival. Pointedly, that is exactly what is at stake. Western Europe's survival as an economic and social, political group of nations acting in the interests and benefits of a union.
The new Russian Empire is about to explode in the East. The Balkans are still smoldering. Southern Europe, Germany and Greece are threatened by a wave of refugees that no one wants and no one wants to admit is as much a European NATO problem as it is a Mid-East problem.
If anything, Europe is once again sleepwalking into war and dissolution of even the Euro. Britain should withdraw from the Euro. But, the moment it does it must step up and once again become an international player and leader.
5
You'd be more convincing if you knew that UK does not have Euro, so can't possibly withdraw from it as you suggest.
2
Jack Frost. The best thing Gordon Brown did was to keep us out of the Euro and chained to the ECB. The U.K. survived the financial better than our EU partners because the Bank of England had the freedom to set interest rates, a luxury not afforded to a Euro country.
1
Missing in this is a look at how the EU treaties adopt Catholic ideology, principally fictions of "virgin birth" and hard-baked gender roles that Anglos have long rejected, for hundreds of years.
The basis of the English constitutional documents in "rights (and responsibilities) of person" (not the "rights of man" of France or the "responsibilities of woman" of Ireland, plus the fact that English is the only language in Europe that is not artifically gendered (it lost the artificial gendering of its German roots over a thousand years ago) all conflict with this Holy Roman Empire-legacy ideology of the EU.
And it was the Anglo-US that have made paternity as inexpensively provable as maternity for the first time in world history, so I think this is one thing that is driving this conflict.
The English parental responsibility law is already gender-neutral but it needs to give every child the right to have his/her bio parents identified at birth (currently only fathers married to the mother have default responsibility).
Then the astonishingly-successful-as-these-things-go UN Rights of the Child Treaty needs to be updated similarly.
The lack of Anglo-US leadership on this, given that they are the ones who have brought this Copernican challenge to the Mediterranean religions, to Africa, to Southeast Asia, etc. is making it a target, I think.
The basis of the English constitutional documents in "rights (and responsibilities) of person" (not the "rights of man" of France or the "responsibilities of woman" of Ireland, plus the fact that English is the only language in Europe that is not artifically gendered (it lost the artificial gendering of its German roots over a thousand years ago) all conflict with this Holy Roman Empire-legacy ideology of the EU.
And it was the Anglo-US that have made paternity as inexpensively provable as maternity for the first time in world history, so I think this is one thing that is driving this conflict.
The English parental responsibility law is already gender-neutral but it needs to give every child the right to have his/her bio parents identified at birth (currently only fathers married to the mother have default responsibility).
Then the astonishingly-successful-as-these-things-go UN Rights of the Child Treaty needs to be updated similarly.
The lack of Anglo-US leadership on this, given that they are the ones who have brought this Copernican challenge to the Mediterranean religions, to Africa, to Southeast Asia, etc. is making it a target, I think.
1
It's over. If the UK walks, then the EU is doomed.
Scandanavia and Germany have also had enough of the shenanigans of such countries as Portugal, Spain, France, Greece and others. Why should they subsidize the socialist leaders in other countries?
Buh-bye EU.
Scandanavia and Germany have also had enough of the shenanigans of such countries as Portugal, Spain, France, Greece and others. Why should they subsidize the socialist leaders in other countries?
Buh-bye EU.
7
California Man. Sorry but your answer is two simplistic. Hegemony over an entire continent with differing cultures is impossible. If the UK chose to leave, this would strengthen the Franco/German stranglehold.
It was Germany and the ECB which allowed cheap money to flow South without any safety checks in place that caused ensuing mess that is after the financial meltdown of 2008 which was American made.
It was Germany and the ECB which allowed cheap money to flow South without any safety checks in place that caused ensuing mess that is after the financial meltdown of 2008 which was American made.
1
Why should the EU save David Cameron, George Osborne and the Conservative Party? What would the EU gain by cutting a special deal with Britain?
UKIP and Nigel Farage scared Mr. Cameron witless and he made a shortsighted and silly promise. Let him try to persuade his nation that they would better off in than out; that is if he wants to keep Britain in the EU.
If the EU gives in now, all the other member states want a special deal as well.
UKIP and Nigel Farage scared Mr. Cameron witless and he made a shortsighted and silly promise. Let him try to persuade his nation that they would better off in than out; that is if he wants to keep Britain in the EU.
If the EU gives in now, all the other member states want a special deal as well.
2
The English empire is long dead yet the British PM Cameron still views the EU as an extension of the British Commonwealth, which could be directed at will.
5
I wish students in the USA would learn about the EU form of government. Its de facto failure was predicted 230 years ago by the failure of the Articles of Confederation and 150 years ago by the failure of the Confederate States of America. Lesson to be learned: Confederacies are a waste of time, energy, and resources as a form of governance. Federations are better due to their stronger sense of unity and identity, and being more effective and stable.
11
Can subscribers please note. It is the United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and includes Scotland and Wales. NOT JUST ENGLAND! For the uninitiated Scotland, (should it leave the UK), will have to APPLY to join the EU and would have to adopt the Euro, which would mean ditching the Pound, which they will not do. Cameron is not really asking for a great deal in real terms that cannot be properly negotiated - apart from restricting benefits to European immigrants which at the last count was apparently 1/2 million. So much of it is hot air. I am pro-European, but I am increasingly anxious at the unbridled power of the German/France axis which makes decisions without any reference to other EU partner states. As for us losing out? The real losers would be the EU zone since we are the second largest contributor to the EU budget, which would be a very big hole to have to suddenly fill, the second largest EU economy, and the fifth largest World economy. And despite all the rhetoric, we are a European nation.
15
I have no problem UK leaving the EU as they have always been trying to destabilize from the inside. UK might be a large contributor but they got a lot back as well as a big check negotiated by Mrs Thatcher. De Gaulle was right to say no to a country which is not interested in continental Europe except to make business with a "boutiquier" behavior. They behave more like the 51st state of the USA rather than a european country. Bon vent!
2
No we don't, and we have NEVER tried to destabilize anything . As a matter of fact we were a net positive contributor to the EU budget and Thatcher negotiated a rebate so we were in balance. As a member of the EU we were as committed as other nations, but we do have an issue with greater integration (a United States of Europe) and would prefer to maintain our own economy and political independence. As for the 51st State? Dear God, NO!
3
I see no downside with England leaving the EU. Trade would still go on as always and the English would no longer be beholden to the radicals in Belgium.
4
We are the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND. Which includes England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unless you don't understand?
2
Britain was always ambivalent about joining the EU and has done its best to make sure that the Union does not become tighter. One of the devices was to allow a large number of states which, since all decisions require unanimity, would make any kind of more cohesive union impossible. What Britain wants is all the possible benefits and the minimum of inconveniences. De Gaulle never wanted Britain in because he was always suspicious of its intentions (maybe a residue of the treatment he received during WWII). In any event, if Britain decides to leave the Union, they will lose Scotland. As long as the economic problems persist, it may be necessary to limit somewhat the free movement of persons. The idea that individual national parliaments can veto Union decisions is a no-starter. Perhaps, a rejection could be effected by a certain percentage of negative votes by the various parliaments, like 35%.
Cameron is not doing himself or Britain any favor and he may bring about more economic uncertainty.
Cameron is not doing himself or Britain any favor and he may bring about more economic uncertainty.
7
I fully agree...
Some of what Cameron says makes sense. While the EU evolved in part to reduce the danger of war, it may be that the great war-maker of Europe, Germany, is on the rise again. I support a closer union in the EU, but believe it needs more time to bring it about smoothly. There's been too much of a rush so far and it gives too much power to Germany.
In 1947, the Allies who won the war decreed the abolition of Prussia. The rise of Prussia from a small state run by the priests of the Teutonic Knights gave Europe its most war-like culture and much death and destruction, including in the Franco-Prussian war and two world wars.
German leaders today can see Putin on their eastern horizon. Why would they not be prepared? But the UK ignored Hitler for too long, and indeed in world war one, they delayed commitment to stopping the German monsters of that time. It is not widely appreciated that Germany had seven armies in the field against France’s five, while the English had a bit of an army on the French left wing. Germany committed horrors and atrocities then, and came close to crushing France. A false move by a German general and sheer luck saved Europe from becoming a pan-Germanic state, as Prussia had once seemed to be.
Cameron may be about to make the same mistake as his forebears made at the start of WWI and WWII. Germany bestrides the EU stage. We need the UK inside with a hand on the controls, not sitting outside in self-congratulation.
In 1947, the Allies who won the war decreed the abolition of Prussia. The rise of Prussia from a small state run by the priests of the Teutonic Knights gave Europe its most war-like culture and much death and destruction, including in the Franco-Prussian war and two world wars.
German leaders today can see Putin on their eastern horizon. Why would they not be prepared? But the UK ignored Hitler for too long, and indeed in world war one, they delayed commitment to stopping the German monsters of that time. It is not widely appreciated that Germany had seven armies in the field against France’s five, while the English had a bit of an army on the French left wing. Germany committed horrors and atrocities then, and came close to crushing France. A false move by a German general and sheer luck saved Europe from becoming a pan-Germanic state, as Prussia had once seemed to be.
Cameron may be about to make the same mistake as his forebears made at the start of WWI and WWII. Germany bestrides the EU stage. We need the UK inside with a hand on the controls, not sitting outside in self-congratulation.
3
Ahh, yes, the monstrous Germans in their endless pursuit of domination over the peace-loving nations of Europe. Why stop looking back in history at WWI? What about the Viking conquest of northwestern France? The subsequent Norman invasion of England? The forceful incorporation of Wales and Scotland into Great Britain? As for pacifistic France, how about the 100 Years War and the even more destructive 30 years war? What about the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the troubles in the Balkans?
I am not trying to paint any one nation as more evil than the next. I'm just pointing out that for the people in any one nation to single out another nation as being permanently brutish or untrustworthy based on history really doesn't help solve the problems that beset the world today.
I am not trying to paint any one nation as more evil than the next. I'm just pointing out that for the people in any one nation to single out another nation as being permanently brutish or untrustworthy based on history really doesn't help solve the problems that beset the world today.
11
The discussion is on the Brexit, and its implications. I prefer that the UK stay in because the long history of Germanic war-making is still not far enough in the past. The Vikings didn't start three major European wars, although Gustavus Adolphus did join in the 30 Yrs War. Neither did the Normans start those wars--nor did their resulting British state.
You might enjoy reading the history of the Teutonic Knights and of the rise of Brandenburg-Prussia. And by the way, the English did claim too much credit from time to time. Without the Prussians, Wellington might have been beaten by Napoleon. And English reticence before two world wars is real. And German brutality in Belgium and northern France is also a matter of record in August 1914.
The 100 Years war is best described as the long messy divorce of the English and French crowns. Remember, the dukes of Normandy were vassals of the French king.
You might enjoy reading the history of the Teutonic Knights and of the rise of Brandenburg-Prussia. And by the way, the English did claim too much credit from time to time. Without the Prussians, Wellington might have been beaten by Napoleon. And English reticence before two world wars is real. And German brutality in Belgium and northern France is also a matter of record in August 1914.
The 100 Years war is best described as the long messy divorce of the English and French crowns. Remember, the dukes of Normandy were vassals of the French king.
The British wavering makes perfect sense.
During Depression and 1914-45 tussle with Germany all English investment went to India that rapidly industrialized so much so that by 1947 Manchester could no longer compete with Calcutta neither in quality nor in price.
Worried that English Capital and Indian cheap labour would devastate UK industry (just as US capital and Chinese labor is doing to us) the Crown hurriedly got freedom FROM India and imposed Tariff giving protected British industry a generation of breathing space till EC was ready (when “Europe joined the Island” as someone famously put it).
Now, the EC/EU has outlived its usefulness. With the rise of China and India there are greener trading and investment pastures than the EU, heavily hostage to Russia for energy and threatened by Islamists menace by land.
After exiting the EU Britain would strengthen its ties with the Anglo-bloc (US, Canada, India, Australia, and British Commonwealth) and Asia under Chinese sphere that is a many times larger field to play than the continental EU, now enlarged by the impoverished southern/eastern Europe.
Resource challenged England in an Evolutionally disadvantaged continent has always played a better game than France and Germany, and will continue to do so. Survival of the fittest.
During Depression and 1914-45 tussle with Germany all English investment went to India that rapidly industrialized so much so that by 1947 Manchester could no longer compete with Calcutta neither in quality nor in price.
Worried that English Capital and Indian cheap labour would devastate UK industry (just as US capital and Chinese labor is doing to us) the Crown hurriedly got freedom FROM India and imposed Tariff giving protected British industry a generation of breathing space till EC was ready (when “Europe joined the Island” as someone famously put it).
Now, the EC/EU has outlived its usefulness. With the rise of China and India there are greener trading and investment pastures than the EU, heavily hostage to Russia for energy and threatened by Islamists menace by land.
After exiting the EU Britain would strengthen its ties with the Anglo-bloc (US, Canada, India, Australia, and British Commonwealth) and Asia under Chinese sphere that is a many times larger field to play than the continental EU, now enlarged by the impoverished southern/eastern Europe.
Resource challenged England in an Evolutionally disadvantaged continent has always played a better game than France and Germany, and will continue to do so. Survival of the fittest.
2
The Padre
A States Rights proposal to haunt the EU from
the Nation that gave birth to the State of Virginia.
A States Rights proposal to haunt the EU from
the Nation that gave birth to the State of Virginia.
1
It will be interesting to see the European response. To be honest, I think Britain needs to be part of Europe far more than Europe needs Britain. This may be the worst time to be making meaningful demands. Nobody will care that they keep their own currency, but they could give Britain a return ultimatum. I have to think that Germany, France, Holland, Spain, and Italy would benefit greatly I Britain is outside their sphere. Britain going alone will look like a washed up formerly great colonial power.
Can London remain the same caliber financial center if Europe if separated? Who are their main trading partners? If Europe, they will now have to do everything to the EU's standards without having any say in the standards as simply an outside trading partner. They could be subject to trade issues or even tariffs. They really have the best deal available now, they shouldn't mess it up.
Can London remain the same caliber financial center if Europe if separated? Who are their main trading partners? If Europe, they will now have to do everything to the EU's standards without having any say in the standards as simply an outside trading partner. They could be subject to trade issues or even tariffs. They really have the best deal available now, they shouldn't mess it up.
21
The UK is the EU's biggest trade partner so if they imposed tariffs it would hurt them more than the UK.
4
Bob: Tariffs will be inevitable if the UK leaves and the legal frameworks - the 'red tape' - start to diverge. Consider the much hated working-time directive (including a work week of no more than 48 hours): The aim is to prevent gaining competitive advantages by lowering social standards below an agreed minimum. One can debate if the minimum should be changed for all. But once one party sets the standards lower unilaterally, the others cannot sit idly and watch their industries getting undercut. Or consider subsidy control - regulations and projects must not favour domestic industries (unless expressly permitted by the Commission, e.g. for commonly agreed, specially designated disadvanted regions): otherwise we would see just the expensive favoring and race to the bottom that still happens in the tax sector (which has yet to be unified). Almost all that goes on in the EU has to do with ensuring fair competition and a level playing field, and the UK press and politicians have consistently failed to explain this to their audiences.
2
But the UK can just agree to continue with the Free Trade agreement. The EU argument in the UK isn't purely about economics. It's the fact unelected judges, some of whom have never even held a judicial post can tell the democratically elected UK (an other EU) governments what to do against their wishes. It's the fact we can not control our own borders, or fish in our own waters. It's the fact we pay Billions of pounds into the EU which just gets wasted every single year and then the EU still wants more. The UK is happy to trade with the EU, it's happy to allow workers from all over the EU to come and work here, but we should also be allowed to say actually enough is enough. Unlike your Germany the UK's population is growing fast and we don't have the services to cope. It's about the UK population being able to elect a government which can do it's bidding not have OUR government saying we can't do things because the EU won't allow it. Germany has only been unified 150 years or so, and other countries have had border changes, revolutions ect relatively recently so are maybe more ok with an EU superstate. The UK has been the UK for 300 years, England and Scotland have been nations for well over a thousand with institutions gradually evolving. We don't want to throw all that away for a United States of Europe.
1
Britain never wanted an United Europe.
The EU exists despite Britain's best efforts to stop it.
This is another of those asinine demands designed to sow conflict between EU members.
This proposal deserves the silence of EU. Without the ECB, let's see how long Scotland remains within Britain.
The EU exists despite Britain's best efforts to stop it.
This is another of those asinine demands designed to sow conflict between EU members.
This proposal deserves the silence of EU. Without the ECB, let's see how long Scotland remains within Britain.
8
You'll probably find a lot of European citizens don't want a United Europe.
8
What the heck are you talking about? The UK SUGGESTED he creation of the EU back in the late 1940's - it was Churchill actually, and we attempted to join in the 1960's when it was a trading bloc -The European Coal and Steel Community, but we were constantly rejected by De Gaulles veto. We are not a member of the ECB, the European Central Bank because we are not in the Euro - we still have the pound and the Bank of England. If Scotland leaves the UK they will have to apply to join the EU and to adopt the Euro.
5
Membership in the EU has important implications for NATO, the weakening of one leading to the weakening of the other. On behalf of global peace and the end to the ratcheting up of a New Cold War, I should like to see Britain leave. The US stake in solid conformity of EU member nations is on the line, Britain's departure being, objectively, a slap in the face to the Obama administration's confrontation with Russia. Good. We've seen enough regime change (Ukraine), encirclement of military bases, joint maneuvers, all directed against Russia. Britain's withdrawal from the EU would represent a game-changer in heading off a possible World War 3.
4
Cameron's demands don't address the serious issues that for decades have been ignored or unresolved. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy has decimated the British fishing industry and has heaped untold misery on our farmers. The CAP works to the advantage of the French and Germans yet this never made Cameron’s list.
We British don't want further integration into what was once a free trading zone becoming a federalised Europe. Our PM has a twin pronged dilemma: the Eurosceptics who want the UK out at all costs as does Nigel Farage of UKIP and the media leading the narrow minded public down the path of xenophobia. The raging debate over the benefits cost is total misinformation which was addressed in today's Newstatemen: there are safeguards within the system which don't allow migrants easy access to taxpayer funds.
Cameron will not achieve his goals as the European Charter which allows free movement has benefitted this country. I'm not a fan of Cameron, his Party or of this federalised Europe but Britain is no longer Great and our economy cannot afforded withstand being left on the sidelines of history.
We British don't want further integration into what was once a free trading zone becoming a federalised Europe. Our PM has a twin pronged dilemma: the Eurosceptics who want the UK out at all costs as does Nigel Farage of UKIP and the media leading the narrow minded public down the path of xenophobia. The raging debate over the benefits cost is total misinformation which was addressed in today's Newstatemen: there are safeguards within the system which don't allow migrants easy access to taxpayer funds.
Cameron will not achieve his goals as the European Charter which allows free movement has benefitted this country. I'm not a fan of Cameron, his Party or of this federalised Europe but Britain is no longer Great and our economy cannot afforded withstand being left on the sidelines of history.
16
That's the problem - The EU wont change so what are we meant to do just suck it up and live with it? The UK is the worlds FIFTH because economy, we would do fine outside of the EU. The same people claiming we would be doomed are the same people who said we would be doomed if we didn't join the Euro.
I agree with everything you say but I'm torn. The days of Empire are over but what about the future for our children. I've a 21 year old son doing a year or several depending upon the moment out in Oz...I dont want him back because there is no future for him here.
England has not been a first rate power since before WWI. It is a small, overcrowded island that has used up it's natural resources and cannot feel its own people. Its political structure is archaic and very inefficient. Still bases its socially on rank and privileged. If it were to leave the EU, it would probably go broke is a very few years. The EU would hardly notice since England contributes so little to the EU economy as it is.
Either Cameron is just pandering to his money base or he is too stupid to be the PM.
Either Cameron is just pandering to his money base or he is too stupid to be the PM.
4
This kind of glorious isolationism had its day by WWII. As citizens of the EU, the British people benefit from access to a single market of 300+ million consumers, duty-free transport of goods throughout that market, visa-free travel from Finland to Sicily, the right to work...or simply live...anywhere in the EU, reciprocal healthcare in any EU country, agricultural subsidies, human rights guaranteed by the ECHR and a massive pool of skilled labour....not to mention the peace dividend. To kiss all that goodbye - primarily for the sake of bogus national pride - would be sheer madness. At this critical time, Britain must fully commit to the European family of nations, instead of whining and carping and dithering.
23
There are about 6 Billion other people in faster growing markets the UK can't reach because of the EU! There are also hundreds of thousands of highly skilled Commonwealth workers who want to come here so we could live without EU workers quite nicely.
4
Family of nations! That's a joke right? You have been watching the news recently regarding the refugee crisis or the Greek crisis before that.
7
The problem is that nobody really explained to the Brits and as a matter of fact to the people of any member state the pros and cons of membership in the EU in clear terms. So for many politicians across the Union the membership has become a scapegoat, the cause of all ills in their respective countries. I think it's now time to have a debate within the different countries on what it means to be part of the EU and lay a long term vision for Europe combining both an economic and political project. Cameron is right to talk about the inefficiencies of the institutions, the loss of sovereignty, etc. but at the end you can't have your cake and eat it too; being member of the Union should not be a pick and chose menu; I want free trade and no tariffs but don't want any of the regulations. I think it will be a loss for the EU to see the UK leave but it would be even a greater loss for the UK to go solo...
21
"So for many politicians across the Union the membership has become a scapegoat,..."
Marie LePen and Nigel Farage. Anybody else who doesn't praise the EU?
Marie LePen and Nigel Farage. Anybody else who doesn't praise the EU?
Britain and continental Europe have incompatible views of the EU. Britain wants an economic arrangement and the others a United States of Europe. The status-quot is unsustainable and undemocratic with Germany and a reduced France making all the decisions. And no one knows what the thousands of EU functionaries are exactly doing but they're expensive.
Britain has been a main stumbling block to closer integration. so an exit, in the aggregate would be a good thing for the EU. The business at all cost Anglo Saxon view just doesn't fit and besides even with a significant economy, Britain doesn't really exist and should be renamed London.
It's time for the EU to get off the pot and don't give an inch to Cameron.
Britain has been a main stumbling block to closer integration. so an exit, in the aggregate would be a good thing for the EU. The business at all cost Anglo Saxon view just doesn't fit and besides even with a significant economy, Britain doesn't really exist and should be renamed London.
It's time for the EU to get off the pot and don't give an inch to Cameron.
13
Cameron's requests should be rejected, otherwise it will open the doors to additional requests from other EU members. UK has always been trying to avoid Europe's integration from the inside and the are trying again, let them leave EU once for good.
The sooner the U.K. leaves the E.U., the better it will be for Europe and for Scotland.
Whether the U.K.'s departure benefits the U.K.? I really don't care.
Whether the U.K.'s departure benefits the U.K.? I really don't care.
15
It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That includes Scotland.
Best to stick to slip on shoes
Best to stick to slip on shoes
4
A royal "We" reserves the right to be selfish, a king Cameron will not be taught.
4
The present requirements in the EU may be far better for the UK than the conditions they can negotiate when they are crawling back after leaving the EU. The non-EU states of Switzerland and Norway have little influence over the regulations they have to accept. Switzerland has already experienced that a referendum outcome that does not suit the EU can result in painful exclusions of EU programs. The Dutch government has once organized a referendum as a measure to gain negotiation strength. It ended when the Netherlands had to accept about the same treaty. Wisely a second referendum was not held. If you give the population the illusion that they can influence something and nothing changes substantially the only result is less trust in democratic institutions. The requirement of a waiting period of 4 years before social benefits are available, ignores the fact that foreigners pay more social taxes than they receive in benefits. The UK can only loose from this ill-conceived referendum.
25
In reality the UK already has little influence over regulations in the EU. It only has 12% of the votes so can (and usually is) easily out voted on things it doesn't like. I read somewhere (sorry can't point to source) but the UK hasn't won a vote on something it hasn't agreed with since the 1990's! Your point about the Dutch referendum surely just goes to prove all that is wrong with the EU. The Dutch quite within their constitutional rights voted against the EU treaty change so what do the EU do, change a couple of words and decided it doesn't require treaty change after all and therefore forcing it on the Dutch public.
8
You talk about trust in democratic institutions but Britain's main problem is the lack of democracy in the EU. Laws and treaties are imposed from above without much say from the British people. This is basically the root of the problem.
1
You are assuming that Britain wishes to join EFTA/EEA. We do not. Most of the 'Out' groups actually agree that EFTA/EEA is becoming more onerous all of the time. They have to comply with over 500 parts of the EU 'Aquis' and that is increasing each time a new edict comes from the EU. Norway, according to Helle Hagnau, is even being blackmailed into accepting even parts of the Aquis than is NOT written into the EEA Agreement in order to get some new deals with the EU through.
The EU is diminishing in terms of World Trade at an uncontrollable rate. From 38% of World Trade in the 1970's to an expected 10-15% in 2020. What thinking person would want to be bound by an officious and moribund trading bloc? Britain, since 2008 already sells more to the British Commonwealth than to the EU and that is without any National Trade Agreements that we are not ALLOWED to make whilst in the EU. Almost 100 countries trade with the EU without being bound by any of the ever increasing impediments to good trade that the EU places upon its members and Britain can do very well once we regain our own seat at the WTO.
It might be the case that Europe ceases to trade with Britain once we leave but can anyone seriously believe that they will do that to their biggest single customer by far? I think not.
The EU is fast becoming the author of its own demise, I hope for the benefit of the other EU countries that they will wake up and smell the coffee and follow Britain into the World.
The EU is diminishing in terms of World Trade at an uncontrollable rate. From 38% of World Trade in the 1970's to an expected 10-15% in 2020. What thinking person would want to be bound by an officious and moribund trading bloc? Britain, since 2008 already sells more to the British Commonwealth than to the EU and that is without any National Trade Agreements that we are not ALLOWED to make whilst in the EU. Almost 100 countries trade with the EU without being bound by any of the ever increasing impediments to good trade that the EU places upon its members and Britain can do very well once we regain our own seat at the WTO.
It might be the case that Europe ceases to trade with Britain once we leave but can anyone seriously believe that they will do that to their biggest single customer by far? I think not.
The EU is fast becoming the author of its own demise, I hope for the benefit of the other EU countries that they will wake up and smell the coffee and follow Britain into the World.
1
"His demands included a safeguard to prevent countries that use the euro from discriminating economically against Britain, which has retained the pound."
So let me get this straight. Mr. Cameron will only stay in the EU if there is no discrimination against Britain. And if he doesn't get his way, then he will leave the EU, which will then certainly discriminate against Britain.
So let me get this straight. Mr. Cameron will only stay in the EU if there is no discrimination against Britain. And if he doesn't get his way, then he will leave the EU, which will then certainly discriminate against Britain.
14
I doubt the EU could afford to discriminate against it's biggest trading partner.
2
It is English arrogance that forces then to retain the Pound. A common currency has many economic benefits. England wast all the benefits but none of the responsibilities.
2
I think you got it wrong the USA and China are bigger trading partners. Also a large part of the trade with the EU is artificial and will disappear going directly to the producing countries as custom fees with the UK will be higher.
2
All if this has nothing to do with the EU, and everything to do with Cameron's attempt to keep his extremist right wing under control. Previous conservative governments have destroyed themselves infighting over Europe, and Cameron knows this one will too. It's only a matter of time. But he is prepared to wreck the UK economy to hold on to power. If it goes wrong for him and England votes to leave, the cost will be VERY high, and will likely include the break up of the UK, as Scotland will undoubtedly vote to stay in, triggering a second independence referendum.
And this time, Scotland will win its freedom.
And this time, Scotland will win its freedom.
38
Well put.
4
No, it's because the vast majority of the UK regardless of which political party they support have been demanding a referendum for years.
Plus what freedoms will Scotland have as part of an EU superstate? DO you think Berlin or Paris or Rome or Warsaw will listen and cave in to wee Scotland's demands once they have been forced to adopt the Euro and 'ever closer union' ? Some Freedom!
Plus what freedoms will Scotland have as part of an EU superstate? DO you think Berlin or Paris or Rome or Warsaw will listen and cave in to wee Scotland's demands once they have been forced to adopt the Euro and 'ever closer union' ? Some Freedom!
9
You have freedom. You mean independence. And if you apply to join the EU you will have to adopt the Euro, and agree to ALL of the German/French decisions....
3
Mr. Cameron would prove to be the right person at the right time for Britain and the European Union. He seems to have a laser focus on the real political dynamics at stake for Britain's future.
One point to add and it should be of concern to all Britons contemplating leaving the EU: if they vote to leave, what happens to the rest of Britain? Scotland would almost certainly leave to join the EU. Fortress England all by itself in the 21st century could be a lonely path if a continent based EU becomes stronger.
Cameron seems to have the dexterity to do this right.
One point to add and it should be of concern to all Britons contemplating leaving the EU: if they vote to leave, what happens to the rest of Britain? Scotland would almost certainly leave to join the EU. Fortress England all by itself in the 21st century could be a lonely path if a continent based EU becomes stronger.
Cameron seems to have the dexterity to do this right.
5
Tut, tut! Is there no Wales in your world?
1
If Scotland wanted to stay in the EU they would be forced to adopt the Euro and eventually have fiscal policy forced upon them by Brussels? And then be forced into 'ever closer union'. Some independence that would be!
3
They can always jopin the Union. The British royals are already welcome in what once the Colonies, and will soon have 52 states (don't forget Wales).
And the Russion Federation stands to gain size, too. Change its name, maybe.
Oceania and Eastasia ?
And the Russion Federation stands to gain size, too. Change its name, maybe.
Oceania and Eastasia ?
Britain can do whatever it wishes. From a European (or at least my own) perspective the British already have quite a good deal in the EU. They are also not part of Schengen and have shouldered no responsibilities whatsoever of the ongoing refugee crisis (although once some of the refugees get citizenship they might migrate to Britain but that is a long way off and not assured). I personally think it would be foolish for Britain to leave EU. All studies indicate that Britain has benefitted immensely from EU migrant workers, other countries can only wish to have so many well educated and motivated people working for pennies in their economies. On the other hand, Cameron's demands don't seem excessive and if they are granted to Britain they should be granted to all. So British if you want to leave, then good riddance! But you are of course most welcome to stay and I think that it is overall the best solution for everyone.
35
Having highly skilled migrant workers working for pennies does not benefit millions of unskilled UK workers who could otherwise do the same jobs. Now obviously as an employer I'd choose a well educated EU worker to stack my shelves or make my coffee, however this job could easily be filled by a younger UK school leaver who now has to compete with better skilled EU workers for unskilled jobs.
3
Bob of Bristol: Have you ever though why England has so many lower skilled workers or why employers are willing to hire higher skilled workers for the wages that lower skilled workers get for the same job?
2
@Pekka Kohonen At least you have the grace to realise that it is your own opinion. Yes, it has been beneficial but ONLY to the employers s because it has driven down the wages of the lower paid and made the employer's profits greater.
Perhaps you can point out the benefits to the lower paid that have their children split up into different schools because there are insufficient primary school places - 20,000 last year; how about that our National Health System that Britons have all paid in for now makes it almost impossible to get to a Doctor in less than a week and in many cases two weeks or longer making it necessary to swamp hospital emergency departments for trivial health issues; How about the fact that there are far too few houses for the population and that house prices have now become so high because of demand that even Middle Management couples can no longer afford to buy in almost every City or large town. Or that people are finding it more and more difficult to travel to and from work because the transportation system can no longer cope with so many extra passengers.
Yes, Britain has a GREAT deal with the EU. We are the second highest contributor to EU funds and we get less than half back in the form of 'grants' from the EU which are selected and controlled by the EU without Britain having any say in how it is spent. Also, because our economy is growing faster outside of the Euro, we are getting much of Europe's unemployed too. Yep, a Great deal.
Perhaps you can point out the benefits to the lower paid that have their children split up into different schools because there are insufficient primary school places - 20,000 last year; how about that our National Health System that Britons have all paid in for now makes it almost impossible to get to a Doctor in less than a week and in many cases two weeks or longer making it necessary to swamp hospital emergency departments for trivial health issues; How about the fact that there are far too few houses for the population and that house prices have now become so high because of demand that even Middle Management couples can no longer afford to buy in almost every City or large town. Or that people are finding it more and more difficult to travel to and from work because the transportation system can no longer cope with so many extra passengers.
Yes, Britain has a GREAT deal with the EU. We are the second highest contributor to EU funds and we get less than half back in the form of 'grants' from the EU which are selected and controlled by the EU without Britain having any say in how it is spent. Also, because our economy is growing faster outside of the Euro, we are getting much of Europe's unemployed too. Yep, a Great deal.
2
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: We call it diplomacy, Minister.
James Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times.
James Hacker: But if that's true, why is the foreign office pushing for higher membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: I'd have thought that was obvious. The more members an organization has, the more arguments it can stir up. The more futile and impotent it becomes.
James Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: We call it diplomacy, Minister.
48
Thank you for explaining British Euro policy for centuries in the easiest way using the great dialogue from "Yes, Minister".
1