Great Britain is not an Island

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

1. With Ireland subsidising market share by grossly undercutting British and European corporate tax rates, courtesy of and funded by the EU)

2. This system relies on an internal market. Without it, the US companies would have to divide their UK investments over all their different European markets. There would be no point in centrally conducting all European business from the UK if there was no unhampered flow of goods and capital in a common market. These unhampered flows rely on legal harmonisation, and would be greatly served further by a common currency.

3. This is why there is so little desire amongst British political and financial elites to leave this system. They see no reason for the UK to voluntarily give up this gift from God, this central position in world trade, simply for tabloid outrage over mythical banana shape regulation, or for blathering buffoons who insist that it is 1933 and the EU nazi-Germany reincarnated.

4. London is to the Atlantic what Hong Kong is to Asia. Even the Chinese commie autocrats were not stupid enough to slaughter this goose with the golden eggs. After regaining sovereignity over Hong Kong, they took painstaking care not to interfere with its workings and position. Very unlike the UK, where the ill-adviced anti-EU sentiment forever demands Westminster pulls out from underneath Britain the very foundation on which the UK economy is build.

5. When the Empire was gone, Britain was bankrupt. It had lost its function as global centre. A poor, obsolete country, that is what Britain was before it joined. It is the EU that has given Britain a new chance at the position of pivot in global trade. De Gaulle understood this when he wanted the Britain to stay out - why give the British another shot? And, why bring in this Trojan Horse of Anglosaxon ultra-capitalism?

6. One of the great ironies of the EU is that precisely its engine, France-Germany, has the least to gain from it economically. France is in it for maintaining its position as great power, or, more positively, to fulfill its vocation of spreading democracy across the continent (or shaping Europe in her own image, for you cynics). Germany is in it for its history, to find its place within Europe at last. The UK is in it for the money. Conflicting interests - as it should be, because the interaction between conflict and competition on the one hand, and cooperation and exchange of ideas on the other, is what historically has been the strength of Europe.

7. But, just why the popular image of the EU within the UK should be that the EU is but an elaborate scheme to release Britain of its wealth is beyond me. To use Napoleon's characterisation: a nation of shopkeepers, that's what it is. Can't see beyond the pennies in front of them.
A measly few hundred million pounds to pay for EU services, to maintain stability and democracy, and to development the market by stimulating periphral regions. That's all the EU costs Britain. In exchange, it finds itself at a phenomenally great position to amass fabulous wealth.

---

1. Ireland has boosted its economic growth by creating and presiding over a low taxation economy, that is their a choice and a sensible one at that, and it is certainly not funded by EU grants.

2. Yes Britian certainly benefits from sitting between europe and america, and as long as we are within the common market that will remain so. That does not mean we have to become part of a federal europe or adopt the euro.

3. You make it sound as is I and the rest of the EUroskeptic crowd want Britain to totally withdraw from europe which is not the case, give me the common market and that will suffice.

4. Why will 'ill advised' anti-EU sentiment destroy the British economy? That would only happen if the EU kicked us out of the common market if we elected to remove ourselves from the EU. If that were to happen then i would still rather be out, because the EU would be exactly the Nazi-Germany reincarnated that you refute (as do I).

5. No, absolutely wrong, Britain was bankrupt because we had mortaged the entire empire to fight two world wars at a time when the empire was no longer a profit making venture. The EU did not give us our wealth back, what a ridiculous statement, it engaged in a free trade union and we traded. Free trade is not some benevolent gift, it is the natural state of affairs.

6. The EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany being a little embarrassed by recent history complied, and their poor trampled neighbours thinking that this was a jolly good idea were happy to join the party too. Not a problem Britain has, so yes we are in it for the money, and if our continental trading partners decide not to slaughter each other every half century thereby destroying the markets that help make Britain rich then all the better.

7. We do not object to the EU because we believe 'you' are trying to beggar us, we simply want no part of ever deeper union which is a desired goal and a necessary outcome of monetary union, especially when the harmonisation does little more than erode our competitive advantage in areas important to our economy. Again i will state, this has nothing to do with our desire to remain in the common market.

I should point out that the principle basis of my attitude to the EU revolves around two points:
1. I want nothing of ever deeper union, something which is both a stated goal and also a necessary outcome of a single currency.
2. If we do reject the encroaching political union then the europe WILL offer us efta/eea status.

So, although i think the plan for a more federated europe is daft and that the EU would be better off wide and shallow than narrow and deep, if that's what you guys want then go for it, just don't expect the UK to be there to give 'stature' to the perception of EUropean economic, military, and political might.

“The EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany being a little embarrassed by recent history complied,”
EU WAS NOT INVENTED by France.
The Iron and Coal Agreement was a political gesture and a good one. France and Germany decided that enough was enough and it won’t be necessary to slaughter their youth once again in case of dispute.
Again, the UK wasn’t forced at knife point to join.
The fall of the Pound today should be a good reason to reinforce the link but the English won’t accept it.
They loose money: it could be a good moment to export to EU but what? There are no more industries in England. The last car factory closed 2 years ago, with 2,000,000 Pounds for the manager and no pension funds for the workers.
If you find something "Made in England", sent it to a museum…

It is the big DENIAL. UK is independent, we have the Pound. The problem is when the Pound is going down, we are the only one to suffer, when the Euro does, well, what does it change for France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Holland and all the others: Nothing. They experiment the same evolution. It doesn’t affect exportation and importation, wages or prices within this community.
A Frenchman retired in Spain. Not a problem. An Englishman retired in Spain: He can’t pay the rent any more…
UK Companies paying their employees in EU/Euro zone will see the price. But the English will keep the Pound. The Pound protects the island against the snaky French and the German. Rules Britannia, rules the waves… “Flutuact nec mergitur” well, for how long?
The opportunity to join the Euro is lost, thanks to people like the one you read. They will never accept to be wrong. They will never accept to have been manipulated by newspapers owned by foreigners; they will never accept they were just gullible.

“our continental trading partners decide not to slaughter each other every half century”
I am sure you did notice some monuments with some names on it in England. The English was part of the slaughter…:beam:

“and it is certainly not funded by EU grants”: You are having a laugh…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That's so odd! I had the exact same problem! I had to put a 'V' after my name is well, the fifth letter of the alphabet, which is of course 'e'. My name should not read 'Louis the Sixth' but 'Louise the First'. People keep getting it wrong, seemingly unaware that I am a girl. :wall:

---

Hmm, a girl with a Wunder Boner. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

1. “The EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany being a little embarrassed by recent history complied,”
EU WAS NOT INVENTED by France.
The Iron and Coal Agreement was a political gesture and a good one. France and Germany decided that enough was enough and it won’t be necessary to slaughter their youth once again in case of dispute.

2. The fall of the Pound today should be a good reason to reinforce the link but the English won’t accept it.
They loose money: it could be a good moment to export to EU but what? There are no more industries in England. The last car factory closed 2 years ago, with 2,000,000 Pounds for the manager and no pension funds for the workers.
If you find something "Made in England", sent it to a museum…

3. It is the big DENIAL. UK is independent, we have the Pound. The problem is when the Pound is going down, we are the only one to suffer, when the Euro does, well, what does it change for France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Holland and all the others: Nothing. They experiment the same evolution. It doesn’t affect exportation and importation, wages or prices within this community.
A Frenchman retired in Spain. Not a problem. An Englishman retired in Spain: He can’t pay the rent any more…

4. UK Companies paying their employees in EU/Euro zone will see the price. But the English will keep the Pound. The Pound protects the island against the snaky French and the German. Rules Britannia, rules the waves… “Flutuact nec mergitur” well, for how long?
The opportunity to join the Euro is lost, thanks to people like the one you read. They will never accept to be wrong. They will never accept to have been manipulated by newspapers owned by foreigners; they will never accept they were just gullible.

5. “our continental trading partners decide not to slaughter each other every half century”
I am sure you did notice some monuments with some names on it in England. The English was part of the slaughter…:beam:

6. “and it is certainly not funded by EU grants”: You are having a laugh…

---

1. Your living in a dream, even Louis admitted it. From wiki as just one possible source:

Quote:

---

1945–1957: Peace from coal and steel
After two devastating world wars, the political climate favoured an international unity that ensured peace. (bombed Hamburg in 1943)

Main article: History of the European Communities (1945-1957)

World War II from 1939 to 1945 saw a human and economic cost which hit Europe hardest. It demonstrated the horrors of war and also of extremism, through the holocaust, for example. Once again, there was a desire to ensure it could never happen again, particularly with the war giving the world nuclear weapons. The countries of Western Europe failed to maintain their Great power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers.[2].

To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Industrial plans for Germany) and its main coal-producing regions were detached (Saarland, Silesia), or put under international control (Ruhr area).[3] (See: Monnet plan)

With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe - these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war. (See: Schuman declaration).
Robert Schuman proposed in May 1950 the Coal and Steel Community.

On the basis of that speech, France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany signed the Treaty of Paris (1951) creating the European Coal and Steel Community the following year; this took over the role of the International Authority for the Ruhr[1] and lifted some restrictions on German industrial productivity. It gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament). The first presidents of those institutions were Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak respectively.

After failed attempts at creating defence (European Defence Community) and political communities (European Political Community), leaders met at the Messina Conference and established the Spaak Committee which produced the Spaak report. The report was accepted at the Venice Conference (29 and 30 May 1956) where the decision was taken to organize a Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom focused on economic unity, leading to the Treaties of Rome being signed in 1957 which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) among the members.[4]

---

2. We have a floating currency, it goes up and it goes down, so what? We have no more industries anymore because we are a free-market economy that does not use government ownership and trade protection to prop up moribund industries. We are a service based economy, so what?

3. Ah, the lovely idea that europe can seal itself off from the rest of the world within its very own single market, safe from the depredations of johnny foreigner with his radical free-market practices. Comes back to my question about how much continental EU nations trade outside of the euro block. Not an option for us to close our eyes and ignore 48% of our trade.

4. What? I didn't really discern anything worth responding too in this paragraph, so i will just re-iterate my original question; explain how Britain will accumulate a net growth benefit from being inside the euro-zone? And then bear in mind that we don't want the necessary political union that results from economic union.

5. I think we have already been through this at length, but if we look at the major military/humanitarian disasters that result from war (and potential ones) in europe we get a list of:
> 30 years war
> Napoleonic War
> WW1
> WW2
> Cold War
Now here are the questions for the slow of wit once again:
a) how many did we start?
b) how many did we help to stop?
c) how many of them could have been stopped without Britain?

6. No I am not, Ireland has experienced massive economic growth because it is an attractive place to invest, this has been aided by EU infrastructure assistance via grant money, but that does not mean; the EU funded irelands ability to undercut the honourable and just taxation system of good continental nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Hmm, a girl with a Wunder Boner. :inquisitive:

---

A girl who likes arrogant and rude women! :smug:

The UK have helped various European countries, it's opposite to what Fat Loui says :yes:

and yes the UK is an island, no sense of geographical knowledge clearly :no:

just for clarity; what specifically are you responding to? it is a little unclear to me at present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

just for clarity; what specifically are you responding to? it is a little unclear to me at present.

---

the OP i think ....

awesome, however i think Louis has given up trying to persuade anyone that Britain is not an 'island'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 777Ares777

and yes the UK is an island, no sense of geographical knowledge clearly :no:

---

It should be clear to everyone by now that Louis is not talking geographically, he's talking culturally.

"Island" as in "cultural island", which is radically different from a geographical island, because trade, and hence culture, travels faster by sea than by land. And as the UK has relied and relies heavily on sea trade, so are they connected closely to others, hence not being an island.

Gah :wall:

Quote:

---

and yes the UK is an island, no sense of geographical knowledge clearly

---

Obviously written by somebody who has no sense of geography .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

"Island" as in "cultural island", which is radically different from a geographical island, because trade, and hence culture, travels faster by sea than by land. And as the UK has relied and relies heavily on sea trade, so are they connected closely to others, hence not being an island.

Gah :wall:

---

that is Louis' argument, but it certainly hasn't be demonstrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Obviously written by somebody who has no sense of geography .

---

Well it is pretty close, surrounded by water and detached by some distance from the mainland of Europe, it certainly has not stopped countless generations treating it as such. Simply because a Frenchie is having a song and dance about it, is no good reason to change such logic. We are not hurting anyone.

Quote:

---

Well it is pretty close

---

No it is not even remotely close unless you define "an island" as over a thousand islands plus part of another island and some more islands for good measure while claiming others lack a sense of geographical knowledge .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it is not even remotely close unless you define "an island" as over a thousand islands plus part of another island and some more islands for good measure while claiming others lack a sense of geographical knowledge .

---

Sounds about right to me:2thumbsup:

At least that is the correct summation of what the UK is within the popular mind, and thus the concept which matters most.
This sceptered Isle is a good piece of evidnece which points the belief among the inhabitants of the UK that they live on an Island, conveniently forgetting Northern Ireland and other little bits. Not really an issue though, since its the idea of an Island mentality which is really got at in this definition.

Alrighty, let's have a look at that "UK is a cultural island"-thingy:

- Language. How many different ones do you find in the english language?

- Music. How much british music is played in mainland europe? How many of the great continental composers(Mozart, Beethoven, etc) have influenced the musical scene in the UK? How much has music from the UK influenced the rest of europe?

- Architecture. Does the UK reject continental ideas in this area, and does the continent reject british ideas?

- Theatre. Same questions as for music.

etc, etc...

Answer these questions, and I can't see how you can come to any conclusion other than Britain being an integral part of Europe, as much as France, Spain, Germany or Italy.

Are Scousers and Geordies cultural islands ?
or should they be sent to an island ?
OK maybe thats a bit harsh but the Brummies definately should be sent to a remote offshore place .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Alrighty, let's have a look at that "UK is a cultural island"-thingy:

- Language. How many different ones do you find in the english language?

- Music. How much british music is played in mainland europe? How many of the great continental composers(Mozart, Beethoven, etc) have influenced the musical scene in the UK? How much has music from the UK influenced the rest of europe?

- Architecture. Does the UK reject continental ideas in this area, and does the continent reject british ideas?

- Theatre. Same questions as for music.

etc, etc...

Answer these questions, and I can't see how you can come to any conclusion other than Britain being an integral part of Europe, as much as France, Spain, Germany or Italy.

---

No. One. Has. Denied. That.

Yesterday it was stated that half of Britons have a foreign ancestry, any my family is French Huegenout in origin, but that is irrelevant.

What matters is the British perception of itself and its place in the world, which leads us to believe that we do not need the EU* whereas many continental countries come to the opposite opinion, both for rational and understandable reasons.

We are european, but we have no desire to become EUropean.



* By which i mean federated future alluded to by the phrase; "ever deeper union".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Yesterday it was stated that half of Britons have a foreign ancestry, any my family is French Huegenout in origin, but that is irrelevant.

---

I just lost all respect I had for you :laugh4:

is it the french'ness or the Huegenout'ness?

So all that matters, as always, are the delusional thoughts people made up for themselves to get a sense of superiority, no wonder the world is doing great. :inquisitive:

By the way, I can now get 0.929 pounds for a Euro. :2thumbsup:

that dratted human penchant for individual thought, the cause of so much progress and so much disaster. if only the human race were a collective hive mind with a single unified goal............

Eh, no, if only humans were individuals without that hive-mind-like thinking of nationalism that creates virtual hives they call nations which then engage in pointless wars over made-up constructs of glory and honour. :dizzy2:

so if only they weren't human?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so if only they weren't human?

---

You mean I must be a robot because I never started a war? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Eh, no, if only humans were individuals without that hive-mind-like thinking of nationalism that creates virtual hives they call nations which then engage in pointless wars over made-up constructs of glory and honour. :dizzy2:

---

WTF?

What on earth does this have to with the discussion. No matter how Humans see themselves they will always fight and kill, be you Tribesman or Citizen. It matters not.

What this discussion is really about, is taking the UK down a peg or to by trying your hardest to tell us who were are or are not, for no good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

WTF?

What on earth does this have to with the discussion. No matter how Humans see themselves they will always fight and kill, be you Tribesman or Citizen. It matters not.

What this discussion is really about, is taking the UK down a peg or to by trying your hardest to tell us who were are or are not, for no good reason.

---

So first you complain that my post has nothing to do with the discussion and then you complain about the discussion, which has a very good reason, having fun. ~;)

But I do not see how the discussion is supposed to bring you down, it's supposed to make you accept your european brothers instead of trying to stay alone on your little island playing empire when you aren't one anymore. The world wants to welcome the British but for some reason they don't want to welcome the world. :shrug:

couple of points:
1. We accept our europeanness, but that does not mean we wish to be assimilated by the EU 'borg'.

2. We do accept the world, we trade all over it, more as a percentage of the total than any other EU nation i'll wager when considering trade outside the EU bloc.

3. Maybe a freudian slip on your part, but the EU does not equal the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

couple of points:
1. We accept our europeanness, but that does not mean we wish to be assimilated by the EU 'borg'.

---

Okay, maybe i got a wrong impression there about your europeanness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

2. We do accept the world, we trade all over it, more as a percentage of the total than any other EU nation i'll wager when considering trade outside the EU bloc.

---

Yes, that is nice, but trade isn't everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

3. Maybe a freudian slip on your part, but the EU does not equal the world.

---

Well, it is the first step in europe towards the world government, you may not believe it but your great grandson will live it. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So first you complain that my post has nothing to do with the discussion and then you complain about the discussion, which has a very good reason, having fun. ~;)

But I do not see how the discussion is supposed to bring you down, it's supposed to make you accept your european brothers instead of trying to stay alone on your little island playing empire when you aren't one anymore. The world wants to welcome the British but for some reason they don't want to welcome the world. :shrug:

---

Oh please, I am not and niether are my countrymen playing Empire and niether are we closing ourselves off to the World, you know this and what you posted was garbage, I have not enied the UK as being part of Europe, its just that as far as I and the vast majority of my fellows are concerned, it is an Island.

What this boils down to as it seems to me, is about some people being all upset by our continued national narrative of an island, part of Europe, but not bowed to the same continental winds as you are, somehow different.

In effect, a petty grievance and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Okay, maybe i got a wrong impression there about your europeanness.

Yes, that is nice, but trade isn't everything.

Well, it is the first step in europe towards the world government, you may not believe it but your great grandson will live it. ~;)

---

very nice of you to admit it.

so as well as trading with the world, and travelling in droves all over it, and acting as a massive hub for education from other parts of the world, we are still lacking a certain something?
perhaps we should have mandatory world empathy sessions set-up in every village across the land to ensure we are suitably 'nice' world citizens.

i certainly hope not!

The topic of this thread is not 'the UK must/musn't be a member of the EU/Euro/European federation'. The topic deals with the step that precedes that. With the myths that surround and cloud the debate about the EU in Britain. The subject is to rubbish several of these national myths about Britain.
These myths play a large part in the British debate about the EU. Which, of course, is why I brought them up. That is only the relevance of this thread and the topic, but not the topic itself.

-~-~-~-+-~-~-~- -~-~-~-+-~-~-~- -~-~-~-+-~-~-~- -~-~-~-+-~-~-~- -~-~-~-+-~-~-~-




https://img519.imageshack.us/img519/...vr05069uy0.jpg

A box of crayons.

Each one is different. But, none can claim to be unique in being different, since all of them are different from one another. This is the fallacy.

There is no such thing as 'this set is divided in two: a singular pink crayon and the continent of the other eleven crayons'. Even if indeed the pinky crayon can rightfully claim to be different from all the others.

That's a nice box of crayons. :yes:

:jumping: I made you a drawing with them! :jumping:



https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3397/husaryc5.jpg

You could also say that they're all unique. My brother compulsively assorted his pens and pencils by colour, keeping them seperate so that he wouldn't have to fuddle his way through the chaotic jumble. I believe he still does this.. poor swine.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has meant to say that the mighty crayon of Britain hovers beyond the rest in a hallowed none-European packet of its own; only that its distinct hue means that - as with my brother - it and all other crayons should be kept seperate. This doesn't mean they cease to be crayons and instead become unique utensils, but rather that they aren't kept tightly bound into a single card-and-plastic prison rubbing up against one another and getting chalky bits in all the wrong places!

I personally just throw all my pencils in a single draw. If I had any skill, I'd thereby be able to whip them all out at once and finish a work of art in little-to-no time, with minimal fuss. And lets face it.. who has room for a score of bickering pencil cases? Not I. My wardrobe is small, as is Europe.

...

For I am Justiciar, Ruiner of Metaphors!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justiciar

You could also say that they're all unique. My brother compulsively assorted his pens and pencils by colour, keeping them seperate so that he wouldn't have to fuddle his way through the chaotic jumble. I believe he still does this.. poor swine.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has meant to say that the mighty crayon of Britain hovers beyond the rest in a hallowed none-European packet of its own; only that its distinct hue means that - as with my brother - it and all other crayons should be kept seperate. This doesn't mean they cease to be crayons and instead become unique utensils, but rather that they aren't kept tightly bound into a single card-and-plastic prison rubbing up against one another and getting chalky bits in all the wrong places!

I personally just throw everything in a single draw. This works fine for me.

...

For I am Justiciar, Ruiner of Metaphors!

---

:yes:

I never knew crayons could be so profound...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

:jumping: I made you a drawing with them! :jumping:



https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3397/husaryc5.jpg

---

:laugh4:

I like that Louis. :2thumbsup:
I will put it on the fridge so I can look at it often.

lol Britain's an island. or what is it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The topic of this thread is not 'the UK must/musn't be a member of the EU/Euro/European federation'. The topic deals with the step that precedes that. With the myths that surround and cloud the debate about the EU in Britain. The subject is to rubbish several of these national myths about Britain.
These myths play a large part in the British debate about the EU. Which, of course, is why I brought them up. That is only the relevance of this thread and the topic, but not the topic itself.

A box of crayons.
Each one is different. But, none can claim to be unique in being different, since all of them are different from one another. This is the fallacy.

---

We are not interested in ever deeper union. And it certainly is not a price we are willing to pay given that many of the understood benefits of that ever deeper union do not really apply to us.

Here is a national myth for you; we don't get invaded very much. that certainly does influence my thoughts when i think about the EU.
You haven't managed to rubbish much of anything, you haven't managed to demonstrate much of anything, this thread is dead in the water as far as advancing your intention goes, but it has been an excellent thread insomuch as it has allowed me to explain why we don't really give a damn about ever deeper union.

Your crayon analogy doesn't really apply, because there are lots of continental nations that are willing to move with the ever deeper union momemtum, which is there choice, but does remove the defence that they are all unique in this respect.

I'm sorry, but any statement, for or against, about an ever deeper union neither agrees nor disagrees with what I've argued in this thread. It is neither the point nor my intention of this thread.



After the crayon metaphor, now the Michigan analogy:
Michigan is culturally obviously different from all of the other 49 states. It doesn't get invaded much by the Union. It is culturally much closer to British commonwealth countries like Canada than to Alabama. Split in half by the Great Lakes (well one of them, but I don't remember which one ~:mecry:), it has a unique geography - which is the cause of Michigan's uniqueness.

This all means that we ought to speak of 'Michigan AND the United States'. And all those unique aspects of Michigan must be taken into account when dealing with the Union. In fact, any Michigan politician who doesn't insist upon them when dealing with non-Michiganese is selling out Michigan to the US. Any opinion an American gives about Michigan is suspect and must be met with due hostility in return.

Well Louis, you have me at a loss. :dizzy2:

This thread sprang directly from the; "is it time for Britain to join the euro" thread, and the entire theme of your arguments have run in the direction of exposing the the ridiculous obstinacy with which the UK acts towards all attempts to become involved in EUrope, resulting from Britains flawed idea that we think we don't have exactly the same problem and share the same goals as the more enlightened countries of the continent.

But if it isn't about that, then you are going to have to tell me exactly what you do wish to discuss..................... :wall:

But even if you are trying to engage in some higher level philosophical debate with the argument that the UK is no different, you cannot ignore the primary expression of this pathology which is the fact that:
1) We do hold ourselves apart from EUrofication. (island mentality)
2) The continent on balance does not. (enlightened and glorious EUropean mentality)

So we are both different (in this respect), and an island (as we behave to our neighbours).

The following statement will add nothing to the disputed subject. It's just a personal gripe I have about the flow of the debate so far and the wording used. It isn't aimed at anyone in particular, I'll hastily add:

In brief, I'd like to point out that there is no collective opinion in Great Britain. The use of the terms "us" and "you" are being bandied about as if the entirety of the British nation fell into a single eurosceptic camp. This is not the case, nor has it ever been so. I myself, a Yorkshireman by birth and a Mancunian by the grace of God have been a supporter of central government and integration since first I became politically aware. I'd hazzard a guess that I am not alone in that, even in these forums. A majority are opposed to the EU. That's hard to deny; a brief conversation with ten randomly selected joes will usually reveal this to be true. Some would even say an overwhelming majority, though I suspect this often wildly exaggerated. Either way, a large portion is not tantamount to a whole.

What I'm trying to say is; don't simply ignore the opinions of those who disagree with you or contradict your side of the debate by proclaiming that the entirety of a nation stands behind/against your argument.

That's it.

Whinge over.

you are quite correct, there are a couple of your lamentable persuasion even here. ;)

when I say "us/we" i am referring to a majority of the british public, not everyone, but given the number of times i have to state my case it is much easier to abbreviate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Well Louis, you have me at a loss. :dizzy2:

But if it isn't about that, then you are going to have to tell me exactly what you do wish to discuss..................... :wall:

---

I set out to challenge several opinions about Great Britain and its role within the EU that I consider based on myth.


I did read all your posts with great interests! I am not the referee over what anybody posts here or the direction any debate follows. Write what you want to share. I do not want to read what I think, I want to read what everybody else thinks. One can do me no greater disfavour than by saying 'what an excellent post, Louis, I couldn't agree more!'

I am not here to convince, never mind to preach, I am here to learn. We won't end this thread agreeing with one another. Nor do we have to for a satisfying, fruitful debate. So far, I have greatly learned from your efforts and from your sharing your thoughts and opinions here, for which my thanks.

ah well, in that case my thoughts are summed up by:

1. the EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany was a bit embarrassed and so complied, their neighbours thought that was a jolly good idea too. not a problem Britain has.

2. socialism took a firmer grip on the continent than ever did here, and the consequence is a much greater enthusiasm for regulation in matters socio-economic. we freebooting Britons pillaging the high financial seas see this as a threat to our competitive advantage.

3. the continent as a result of the 30 years war, the franco-prussian war, the first world war as well as the second and many more, has suffered centuries of political instability repression and revolution. how many continental countries have not been facist, communist, revolutionary, and invaded in the last 350 years? the EU therefore represents stability to many nations, not a problem Britain has.

4. for an economic union to work, in the bad times as well as the good, there needs to be a large element of political union; who is the lender of last resort, why should germany bail out italy's fantastic attempt to make the euro worthless, etc. we don't necessarily want a political union, we have an exceptionally successful political model already, and no-one has demonstrated why an extra layer of EU federalism is an improvement.

5. we are rich in absolute and comparative terms, will joining the euro make us richer or poorer? certainly no-one has persuaded me that joining the euro, with all the harmonisation that entails, will do anything but reduce britain's competitive advantage.

6. we have a history with, and a duty to, the commonwealth nations to assist them in their socio-economic development, and we like the freedom to recommend our political structures and structure economic packages to their benefit as we see fit. specifically, we dislike EU trade protectionism and the damage we feel it does to developing nations, especially given the skepticism with which we view aid programs. there is no question that greater involvement in the EU further reduces our options with the developing world generally, and the commonwealth in particular.

7. similar to #6, there further we integrate the less free our hand to act as we please, which is fine if we acted in concordance with the rest of the continent because we amplify our message, but bad if we have divergent views because our own will be watered down among 300 million continetal voices. if Britain decides it wants to join america in invading somewhere then i don't want to euro apparatchik telling us we can't because we signed up to a common foriegn policy!

how's that do for you?

"I think therefore I am" seems appropriate and saves five or so pages. :book:

It's also strangely sad to see the "blame the U.S." trend is diminishing. Ever since I realized that the French love to be reviled I grew to like it. People are forgetting the key role the U.S. played in forming the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ah well, in that case my thoughts are summed up by:

1. the EU was invented by france to ensure that germany never invaded again, germany was a bit embarrassed and so complied, their neighbours thought that was a jolly good idea too. not a problem Britain has.

---

I don't know why you keep bringing this on. After WW2, Germany was in no position to threaten France in any way. Partitioned, no army, no economy, no political influence, not to mention that a little later France became a nuclear power. Since Germany wasn't (and still isn't and won't be), no military threat to France from Germany exists.

Granted, UK is somewhat different to most European states in that regard and London is still one of the world's top financial centers, but is going to change and importance of London as a financial center is going to decline. By using "channels" (I'm sure there's a better word, but nothing comes to mind right now) from the times of the empire, London still controls a good chunk of money flow from southeast Asia and Middle East and that is going to change in favour of new financial centers that are emerging there... I expect that in several decades, UK will adopt the Euro and start integrating more in EU. Maybe even earlier, it depends on a huge number of factors...

The kinds of ideas about closer economic cooperation across state borders that the EU stems from were being floated around already in the interwar period, you know. One reason was that the benefits of scale the US derived from the sheer size of its internal market were not lost on Euro economists.

Anyway, what can be regarded as the concrete first step in the chain that led to the present EU was the Coal And Steel Union formed between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe someone else (can't be arsed to check the details ATM) shortly after the war; the direct impetus was a distruption in the supply of English coal due to domestic reasons that put French industry in a tight spot, and convinced them to start looking for alternate suppliers and arrangements.

Furuncu wasn't entirely incorrect, however, as one important consideration in the various postwar cooperative agreements indeed was binding the interests of at least the big boys of the block (initially France and Germany) so closely that they'd be flat out forced to cooperate and compromise with each other in the future. The downsides of confrontational competition and "me-firsting" had, after all, become demonstrated concretely indeed in the recent few decades...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I don't know why you keep bringing this on. After WW2, Germany was in no position to threaten France in any way. Partitioned, no army, no economy, no political influence, not to mention that a little later France became a nuclear power. Since Germany wasn't (and still isn't and won't be), no military threat to France from Germany exists.

Granted, UK is somewhat different to most European states in that regard and London is still one of the world's top financial centers, but is going to change and importance of London as a financial center is going to decline. By using "channels" (I'm sure there's a better word, but nothing comes to mind right now) from the times of the empire, London still controls a good chunk of money flow from southeast Asia and Middle East and that is going to change in favour of new financial centers that are emerging there... I expect that in several decades, UK will adopt the Euro and start integrating more in EU. Maybe even earlier, it depends on a huge number of factors...

---

because france had feared germany for the previous 100 years as a result of the demographic slide of former relative to latter, of which the last grasp for dominance by france was the franco-prussian war. one does not cast aside a hundred years of decline especially after two world wars have just been fought on your front lawn. wiki ssums the situation up nicely (quoted below).

Britain is a financial hub for more reasons than just history, though that plays a large part. Not so long ago that position was occupied by New York, which goes to show how important the regulatory environment is. this along with that history, the ease of movement of people, language, culture and institutions all play their part.
Yes Britain will decline, all of the old west is declining relative to the 'new' east, and we will certainly decline all the faster if we integrate our financial sector regulation with that of europe.
You might be right about the timeline, I for one won't put any certainty on predictions cast decades into the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

The kinds of ideas about closer economic cooperation across state borders that the EU stems from were being floated around already in the interwar period, you know. One reason was that the benefits of scale the US derived from the sheer size of its internal market were not lost on Euro economists.

Anyway, what can be regarded as the concrete first step in the chain that led to the present EU was the Coal And Steel Union formed between France, Germany, the Benelux countries and maybe someone else (can't be arsed to check the details ATM) shortly after the war; the direct impetus was a distruption in the supply of English coal due to domestic reasons that put French industry in a tight spot, and convinced them to start looking for alternate suppliers and arrangements.

Furuncu wasn't entirely incorrect, however, as one important consideration in the various postwar cooperative agreements indeed was binding the interests of at least the big boys of the block (initially France and Germany) so closely that they'd be flat out forced to cooperate and compromise with each other in the future. The downsides of confrontational competition and "me-firsting" had, after all, become demonstrated concretely indeed in the recent few decades...

---

from wiki:

Quote:

---

1945–1957: Peace from coal and steel
After two devastating world wars, the political climate favoured an international unity that ensured peace. (bombed Hamburg in 1943)

Main article: History of the European Communities (1945-1957)

World War II from 1939 to 1945 saw a human and economic cost which hit Europe hardest. It demonstrated the horrors of war and also of extremism, through the holocaust, for example. Once again, there was a desire to ensure it could never happen again, particularly with the war giving the world nuclear weapons. The countries of Western Europe failed to maintain their Great power status leaving two rival ideologically opposed superpowers.[2].

To ensure Germany could never threaten the peace again, its heavy industry was partly dismantled (See: Industrial plans for Germany) and its main coal-producing regions were detached (Saarland, Silesia), or put under international control (Ruhr area).[3] (See: Monnet plan)

With statements such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe" becoming louder, in 1949 the Council of Europe was established as the first pan-European organisation. In the year following, on 9 May 1950, the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed a community to integrate the coal and steel industries of Europe - these being the two elements necessary to make weapons of war. (See: Schuman declaration).
Robert Schuman proposed in May 1950 the Coal and Steel Community.

On the basis of that speech, France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany signed the Treaty of Paris (1951) creating the European Coal and Steel Community the following year; this took over the role of the International Authority for the Ruhr[1] and lifted some restrictions on German industrial productivity. It gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament). The first presidents of those institutions were Jean Monnet and Paul-Henri Spaak respectively.

After failed attempts at creating defence (European Defence Community) and political communities (European Political Community), leaders met at the Messina Conference and established the Spaak Committee which produced the Spaak report. The report was accepted at the Venice Conference (29 and 30 May 1956) where the decision was taken to organize a Intergovernmental Conference. The Intergovernmental Conference on the Common Market and Euratom focused on economic unity, leading to the Treaties of Rome being signed in 1957 which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) among the members.[4]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

because france had feared germany for the previous 100 years as a result of the demographic slide of former relative to latter, of which the last grasp for dominance by france was the franco-prussian war. one does not cast aside a hundred years of decline especially after two world wars have just been fought on your front lawn. wiki ssums the situation up nicely (quoted below).

---

I'm not arguing that preventing future wars was one of the reasons behind EU, but saying that EU was French invention because they were afraid of future German invasion is oversimplification, to put it mildly. There were many other, even more important factors...

Britain is a financial hub for more reasons than just history, though that plays a large part. Not so long ago that position was occupied by New York, which goes to show how important the regulatory environment is. this along with that history, the ease of movement of people, language, culture and institutions all play their part.
Yes Britain will decline, all of the old west is declining relative to the 'new' east, and we will certainly decline all the faster if we integrate our financial sector regulation with that of europe.
You might be right about the timeline, I for one won't put any certainty on predictions cast decades into the future.[/QUOTE]

It's just a guess. I'm not a political analyst or an economic expert. We know it will happen but for "when", your guess is as good as mine...

The point about france was that france and others see in the EU security, where the UK does not.

I would even be to sure about that, there really isn't any net advantage to Britain for being inside the euro.