ChatterBank1 min ago
Can we afford to stay in the European Union?
23 Answers
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/123857/Lab our-s-surrender-to-Brusses-s-losing-us-billion s
Britain's payments to the European Union will rocket by almost 60 per cent, from �4.1billion this year to a mind boggling, eye watering, incredible �6.4billion in 2010/11.
The cost of financing the Afghan and Iraqi wars, �4.5billion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/af ghanistan-iraq-bill-british-military
The cost of bailing out the banks,.�200billion
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/96350
Can we now afford another �6.4billion to fund our payment to Europe?
Margaret Thatcher forced Brussels to give us a budget rebate, but since then Tony Blair negotiated away about 20 per cent (�7.2billion) of the rebate that we would have received between 2007 and 2013.
Brown boasted that as part of this deal, France would reform the wasteful Common Agricultural Policy. Has that happened? No. Will it happen? No.
Britain's payments to the European Union will rocket by almost 60 per cent, from �4.1billion this year to a mind boggling, eye watering, incredible �6.4billion in 2010/11.
The cost of financing the Afghan and Iraqi wars, �4.5billion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/af ghanistan-iraq-bill-british-military
The cost of bailing out the banks,.�200billion
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/96350
Can we now afford another �6.4billion to fund our payment to Europe?
Margaret Thatcher forced Brussels to give us a budget rebate, but since then Tony Blair negotiated away about 20 per cent (�7.2billion) of the rebate that we would have received between 2007 and 2013.
Brown boasted that as part of this deal, France would reform the wasteful Common Agricultural Policy. Has that happened? No. Will it happen? No.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
The EU can now be classed as a failed state in my opinion. Far to many countries involved, what's that saying about the weakest link. Ex iron curtain countries are far too poor and all that happens are these �bns being pumped in to bring to our standard. Not that this does any good. Ireland had �bns pumped into its economy and when the public asked to vote on the treaty refused it. Some gratification!
The US has gone over the heads of the EU and dealt directly with Poland and Czechislovakia to site its star wars missiles. What say did we have in it? Bugg?r all! Yet if Russia did decide to attack these bases who would be first to defend them, the EU of course.
We should have kept with the original 6 members and the remainder could have become associate members with no voting rights.
The US has gone over the heads of the EU and dealt directly with Poland and Czechislovakia to site its star wars missiles. What say did we have in it? Bugg?r all! Yet if Russia did decide to attack these bases who would be first to defend them, the EU of course.
We should have kept with the original 6 members and the remainder could have become associate members with no voting rights.
the EU accounts for about a third of British trade. So we could pull out of the EU, lose our foreign market, save our �6 billion and spend it on locally-made products to stop our industries going bust. Are you prepared to buy British? No German cars? No French golden delicious? (You'll still be able to get them, though not on such favourable terms, but our manufacturers will see their sales drop off in Europe as their prices are forced to rise, so either British buyers take up the slack or they go to the wall.)
Incidentally, I'm not sure this should be in News; it was in newspapers last year.
Incidentally, I'm not sure this should be in News; it was in newspapers last year.
>So we could pull out of the EU, lose our foreign market,
Being OUT of the EU does not mean we could stop trading with Europe.
Other countries are IN Europe but OUT of the EU and they seem to manage OK.
The EU is just one huge "civil service" drowning in red tape and corruption.
It is FAR too large, spreads it coverage too far (why the h*ll do we want Roma gypsies here), and hopefully will eventually collapse under its own weight.
Being OUT of the EU does not mean we could stop trading with Europe.
Other countries are IN Europe but OUT of the EU and they seem to manage OK.
The EU is just one huge "civil service" drowning in red tape and corruption.
It is FAR too large, spreads it coverage too far (why the h*ll do we want Roma gypsies here), and hopefully will eventually collapse under its own weight.
like I said, you can still trade, just not on such favourable terms. It means American or Chinese goods will be cheaper abroad compared to ours, European goods will be dearer here. I don't have any recent figures on just how much the EU 'costs', but it's not all one sided - billions out, nothing in. There's an upside as well.
Plus historically, the aim of the EU - which has been successful - has been to stop Europeans going to war with each other. We may not have fed millions of pounds into Europe in the 40s, but we lost millions of lives.
Not just WW2 but the cold war. Boot out Romania, say, and what happens? Russia moves in with offers of cheap oil and government handouts, and pretty soon a buffer state against Putin changes sides and a little bit of iron curtain goes up again. Is it worth paying to stop this happening? I would say so, others might not.
Plus historically, the aim of the EU - which has been successful - has been to stop Europeans going to war with each other. We may not have fed millions of pounds into Europe in the 40s, but we lost millions of lives.
Not just WW2 but the cold war. Boot out Romania, say, and what happens? Russia moves in with offers of cheap oil and government handouts, and pretty soon a buffer state against Putin changes sides and a little bit of iron curtain goes up again. Is it worth paying to stop this happening? I would say so, others might not.
I�m afraid you�ve fallen for the most classic of all the Euro-drivel, jno, about the EU being responsible for peace in Europe.
Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that without the EU parts of Europe would have been at each other�s throats at some time during the last 60 years? Do you really believe that if somebody such as Hitler came along with the intention of dominating Europe by military force he would pause and say �Oh. Better not. We are all members of the same club, after all!� Do you really believe that the EU has been responsible for �peace in our time�?
The reason that Europe has been comparatively peaceful since 1945 is that most of the nations (the UK included) have grown up, abandoned their pretentions of world dominance and have been relatively free of war-mongering dictators (Tony Blair excluded).
If anything it is the EU itself that threatens the very stability of Europe by its increasing expansion and the unnatural forcing together, under one legislature, of nations with hugely different cultural, religious and political interests.
All such conglomerates have ended in tears (the most recent being the Soviet Union) and the EU will be no different.
The UK has no need to be a member of the EU. Membership is positively damaging in many ways and the interests of its people would be better served if we left forthwith.
But there's too much at stake for them personally for the politicians to allow a trivial matter such as the electorate's wishes to get in the way.
Do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that without the EU parts of Europe would have been at each other�s throats at some time during the last 60 years? Do you really believe that if somebody such as Hitler came along with the intention of dominating Europe by military force he would pause and say �Oh. Better not. We are all members of the same club, after all!� Do you really believe that the EU has been responsible for �peace in our time�?
The reason that Europe has been comparatively peaceful since 1945 is that most of the nations (the UK included) have grown up, abandoned their pretentions of world dominance and have been relatively free of war-mongering dictators (Tony Blair excluded).
If anything it is the EU itself that threatens the very stability of Europe by its increasing expansion and the unnatural forcing together, under one legislature, of nations with hugely different cultural, religious and political interests.
All such conglomerates have ended in tears (the most recent being the Soviet Union) and the EU will be no different.
The UK has no need to be a member of the EU. Membership is positively damaging in many ways and the interests of its people would be better served if we left forthwith.
But there's too much at stake for them personally for the politicians to allow a trivial matter such as the electorate's wishes to get in the way.
Perhaps you�d could explain your �disaster� scenario, brionon.
As far as I can see it:
-We�d be somewhere between �6bn and �60bn a year better off financially (depending upon who you believe).
-We would regain the right to say who does and does not settle here.
-We�d regain control over our legislature.
-We could (and certainly would) still trade as much with European nations � as do those that are currently non-members.
-We would no longer be forced to adopt ridiculous laws and regulation passed by people who have little or no interest in the well being of the UK.
-We would not be threatened with our armed forces and foreign policy coming under the control of the EU.
-And our failed politicians would not have a convenient bolt-hole to withdraw to (still exercisiing control over the UK electorate) when rejected by the UK.
And I could go on. So what�s disastrous about that?
As far as I can see it:
-We�d be somewhere between �6bn and �60bn a year better off financially (depending upon who you believe).
-We would regain the right to say who does and does not settle here.
-We�d regain control over our legislature.
-We could (and certainly would) still trade as much with European nations � as do those that are currently non-members.
-We would no longer be forced to adopt ridiculous laws and regulation passed by people who have little or no interest in the well being of the UK.
-We would not be threatened with our armed forces and foreign policy coming under the control of the EU.
-And our failed politicians would not have a convenient bolt-hole to withdraw to (still exercisiing control over the UK electorate) when rejected by the UK.
And I could go on. So what�s disastrous about that?
This article shows where a high proportion of the costs go in financing the EU
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n803516.html
As each new member joins it places an even greater stretch on the finances.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Questio n803516.html
As each new member joins it places an even greater stretch on the finances.
New judge, that was exactly the purpose in setting up the EU - more specifically, to tie German industry and French agriculture so tightly together that it would be suicide for both countries if either went to war. Remember, they had staged three devastating wars in less than a century (we stayed out of the first in 1870 but suffered grievously in the other two).
They have not done it again, because the medicine worked. It was only in part because they grew up, as you put it (and the EU was part of growing up) but because previously one side went to war with another hoping to win. Now they're so tied together it's impossible for either side to win. And before you say it was just France and Germany's problem - well, so were WW1 and WW2... in theory.
So anyway - exactly which EU member do you think might produce a Hitler now?
They have not done it again, because the medicine worked. It was only in part because they grew up, as you put it (and the EU was part of growing up) but because previously one side went to war with another hoping to win. Now they're so tied together it's impossible for either side to win. And before you say it was just France and Germany's problem - well, so were WW1 and WW2... in theory.
So anyway - exactly which EU member do you think might produce a Hitler now?
-- answer removed --
A bald bleating of the figures glosses over public sentiment towards the UK in other member states - and public sentiment will be absolutely crucial to our fortunes.
You can hardly compare the ability of non-EU countres to trade with the EU, to the ability of the UK to do it once it's performed the biggest political snub in modern history. A move that says 'We don't want or need you lot, thanks' and that weakens the political standing of the remaining Union won't be met cheerfully. Expect a Europe-wide reluctance to buy British, if only to show support for the continued European union.
You can hardly compare the ability of non-EU countres to trade with the EU, to the ability of the UK to do it once it's performed the biggest political snub in modern history. A move that says 'We don't want or need you lot, thanks' and that weakens the political standing of the remaining Union won't be met cheerfully. Expect a Europe-wide reluctance to buy British, if only to show support for the continued European union.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Home & Garden2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.