Is it time for Britain to get out of the EU

[mj.scuba 10]

I think that the EU wouldn't let the UK leave without imposing some sort of penalty, if anything to make up for the shortfall in income from us leaving, I can't see Germany and France stumping up more money.

 

If we also imposed a trade duty on the EU it's my opinion that whilst it'll be damaging for the EU, it'll destroy our economy. There is no way that we'd win an economic war against the largest exporter, the largest importer of goods and services, and the biggest trading partner to the United States, China and India.

 

We need to be inside this union making sure it makes decisions that help our country.

 

The thing is both sides of the mainstream argument know this, but the eurosceptics continue pander to popular opinion in order to squeeze as much popularity out of the movement as possible.

 

Do you think the EU and it's businesses that export to the UK would want more trade barriers to the UK market, bearing in mind how much we import from Europe? No I don't think they would, which is why I think the fear of these trade barriers being imposed is an unfounded one.

 

It would only destroy our economy if we ceased to trade with EU states, which is not on the cards.

 

The idea that we need to be in the EU for our prosperity, is a myth, and could equally be seen as populist propaganda from the pro-EU lobby. There are many big UK businesses and leading business people and economists believe we would be better off out, so simply saying it's populist politics isn't accurate, although I accept it is the more Euro-sceptic press that will obviously dedicate more print to the cause, just as the pro-EU press will print stuff about how wonderful it is.

[L00b 441]

As a member of the WTO, Where would we stand.

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm

No difference, really (which is also why any kind of 'exit sanction' by the EU is unlikey - officially at least, that is).

 

Think of the WTO as a 'global common market', i.e. setting trading rules for countries the world over, regardless of whether these countries trade entirely independently or also with preferred terms within regional blocks (à la EU).

 

China is a WTO member these days, and has had to do a ton of legislative reforms in all aspects of business and legal life, to become so. And it's no smoke and mirrors either. In my field of practice/speciality, the pace and impact of changes in China (and the corresponding adaptability of Chinese businesses to these changes) is downright scary.

[retep 68]

No difference, really (which is also why any kind of 'exit sanction' by the EU is unlikey - officially at least, that is).

 

Think of the WTO as a 'global common market', i.e. setting trading rules for countries the world over, regardless of whether these countries trade entirely independently or also with preferred terms within regional blocks (à la EU).

 

China is a WTO member these days, and has had to do a ton of legislative reforms in all aspects of business and legal life, to become so. And it's no smoke and mirrors either. In my field of practice/speciality, the pace and impact of changes in China (and the corresponding adaptability of Chinese businesses to these changes) is downright scary.

 

Thats what I was thinking.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Do you think the EU and it's businesses that export to the UK would want more trade barriers to the UK market, bearing in mind how much we import from Europe? No I don't think they would, which is why I think the fear of these trade barriers being imposed is an unfounded one.

 

It would only destroy our economy if we ceased to trade with EU states, which is not on the cards.

 

The idea that we need to be in the EU for our prosperity, is a myth, and could equally be seen as populist propaganda from the pro-EU lobby. There are many big UK businesses and leading business people and economists believe we would be better off out, so simply saying it's populist politics isn't accurate, although I accept it is the more Euro-sceptic press that will obviously dedicate more print to the cause, just as the pro-EU press will print stuff about how wonderful it is.

 

If you really do believe that Germany and France would happily pay more money towards the EU at our expense we will have to disagree then.

 

Also if you believe that being part of the largest exporter, the largest importer of goods and services, and the biggest trading partner to the United States, China and India isn't beneficial then again we'll have to disagree.

[Phanerothyme 12]

The idea that we need to be in the EU for our prosperity, is a myth, and could equally be seen as populist propaganda from the pro-EU lobby. There are many big UK businesses and leading business people and economists believe we would be better off out, so simply saying it's populist politics isn't accurate, although I accept it is the more Euro-sceptic press that will obviously dedicate more print to the cause, just as the pro-EU press will print stuff about how wonderful it is.

 

I thought it was a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integration, and nothing to do with prosperity except as a by product of peaceful coexistence.

[Jeffrey Shaw 88]

I thought it was a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integration, and nothing to do with prosperity except as a by product of peaceful coexistence.

NATO has nothing to do with the EU. Were you confusing the two?

[Phanerothyme 12]

Nope.

 

I don't think I even mentioned NATO.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

NATO has nothing to do with the EU. Were you confusing the two?

 

NATO was organised to keep the USA in Europe, and to stop it doing what it did after WW1.

[Jeffrey Shaw 88]

Nope.

 

I don't think I even mentioned NATO.

True; but you did post a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integratio,

- which is largely a function of NATO (itself not a political quasi-nation construct or superstate).

[mj.scuba 10]

If you really do believe that Germany and France would happily pay more money towards the EU at our expense we will have to disagree then.

 

Also if you believe that being part of the largest exporter, the largest importer of goods and services, and the biggest trading partner to the United States, China and India isn't beneficial then again we'll have to disagree.

 

Individual nation states trade with India, China, USA, Brazil etc. not the EU as a whole.

 

Take this example.

 

Note, it is President Sarkozy doing the handshake, not an EU beurocrat, because the deal is with France, not the EU. All of the states of the EU already trade individually with all those countries outside the EU, the only thing they have in common are the various import/export duties set by the EU.

 

Take a look at these:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10783485

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10784317

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10784615

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10785734

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10790222

 

That's right, our very own Prime Minister on a trade mission to India, not an EU beurocrat on our behalf.

 

The EU, without UK contributions, will simply have to cut their cloth. Perhaps they should look at how much they subsidise the agricultural sector?

Edited June 20, 2011 by mj.scuba

[Phanerothyme 12]

True; but you did post a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integratio,

- which is largely a function of NATO (itself not a political quasi-nation construct or superstate).

 

 

NATO isn't the organisation that sought to bring former enemy countries together in political union starting 10 years after the end of WWII.

 

NATO is the embodiment of a mutual defence treaty against the perceived Soviet threat.

 

I thought everyone knew that.

[mj.scuba 10]

I thought it was a deliberate act to make war much more difficult, by increasing interdependency and integration, and nothing to do with prosperity except as a by product of peaceful coexistence.

 

Correct me if wrong, I think what you are referring to is the purpose of the original EU (can't remember what it was, EC, ECC or the like) which was to limit the production of thing like steel, so that European countries would simply not have the materials to go to war with each other. In effect to prevent an arms race in Europe as happened before.