Great Britain is not an Island

[HoreTore]

2 - I am quite convinced a majority of British foreign trade is with the EU. Strangely, I can't find a link.

The CIA has you covered, Louis! And since this isn't about any WMD's, I think we can trust them....

Export partners:
US 14.2%, Germany 11.1%, France 8.1%, Ireland 8%, Netherlands 6.8%, Belgium 5.3%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.1% (2007)

Import Partners:
Germany 14.2%, US 8.7%, China 7.3%, Netherlands 7.3%, France 6.9%, Belgium 4.7%, Norway 4.7%, Italy 4.2% (2007)

The economy of Britain is, indeed, on the continent. The only thing stopping that would be the coming Indian/Chinese powerhouse, and by then we'll all be in that situation. Together.

And we all know that the real reason Britain resists the euro is because of the national-romantic dream of the Pound and it's former glory. Brits do love to dream of the past, with their great empire, economy, army... They'll probably wake up eventually though. If not, their 3 remaining ships(boats) won't even be able to fend of the Norwegian navy

That's a good scenario, actually. But I doubt we'll pillage and rape this time... Judging by the standards of british women nowadays, I'd say we should stick with the pillaging.

[Jolt]

Judging by the standards of british women nowadays, I'd say we should stick with the pillaging.

[JR-]

And we all know that the real reason Britain resists the euro is because of the national-romantic dream of the Pound and it's former glory. Brits do love to dream of the past, with their great empire, economy, army... They'll probably wake up eventually though. If not, their 3 remaining ships(boats) won't even be able to fend of the Norwegian navy

That's a good scenario, actually. But I doubt we'll pillage and rape this time... Judging by the standards of british women nowadays, I'd say we should stick with the pillaging.

I won't argue about British women, there is a reason why i have a girlfriend from the continent, but jokes aside you are yet another person that has failed to provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro than sterling...............

And given that this thread is actually about the politics of Britains 'perverse' desire to remain apart from our EUro-integrationist cousins across the water............. you could probably do with weaving that into your argument, otherwise your comment is better left in the; Is it time for Britain to join the Euro thread.

[Sarmatian]

I won't argue about British women, there is a reason why i have a girlfriend from the continent, but jokes aside you are yet another person that has failed to provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro than sterling...............

Check the exchange rate when euro was first introduced and check it now. Since most of the British trading is with the countries on the continent, I'd think that's reason enough.

Just a few days ago I've read that Fabio Capello lost 1.2 million euros because of that...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Export partners:
US 14.2%, Germany 11.1%, France 8.1%, Ireland 8%, Netherlands 6.8%, Belgium 5.3%, Spain 4.5%, Italy 4.1% (2007)

Import Partners:
Germany 14.2%, US 8.7%, China 7.3%, Netherlands 7.3%, France 6.9%, Belgium 4.7%, Norway 4.7%, Italy 4.2% (2007)

Is there ANYBODY with whom we yanks do NOT have a trade defecit?

[Sarmatian]

Is there ANYBODY with whom we yanks do NOT have a trade defecit?

I'm pretty sure you don't have one with Serbia. Your surplus might go up to three or four thousand dollars

[Brenus]

“provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro”
1- To end the English banks robbery of Exchange rate, to be able to use the same money in Ireland, Germany, France
2 - to be able to compare de visu our salaries and charges with the rest of them.
3 - Spend your hard earned money without having to calculate how much it is in Pounds…
4 - Not having foreign useless coins in a jar on the top of the fridge waiting for the next time you will need them…
The last one is the most convincing....

[JR-]

“provide any reason to explain WHY britain would be better off using the euro”
1- To end the English banks robbery of Exchange rate, to be able to use the same money in Ireland, Germany, France
2 - to be able to compare de visu our salaries and charges with the rest of them.
3 - Spend your hard earned money without having to calculate how much it is in Pounds…
4 - Not having foreign useless coins in a jar on the top of the fridge waiting for the next time you will need them…
The last one is the most convincing....

all valid reasons for a non-Brit to want us in the euro...............................

[JR-]

Check the exchange rate when euro was first introduced and check it now. Since most of the British trading is with the countries on the continent, I'd think that's reason enough.

our exporters will benefit, our financial sector will suffer, but on balance...............

[Incongruous]

I think the animosity toward the UK as indicated by the French government's policy on farm subsidies is yet another reason why the UK will continue to view EUrope with dislike.

That and Brussels absurd policy on Turkey...

[Sarmatian]

our exporters will benefit, our financial sector will suffer, but on balance...............

Exporting benefit of inflation is overrated. Sure it's there, but quite limited, it's beneficial between let's say 1-3%, depending on the circumstances. Over that cons far outweigh the pros. But let's say it's beneficial, doesn't matter how high. It will make British goods cheaper on the continent, thus stimulation British exports but at the same time it will make continental goods more expensive in Britain, and you're importing more from Germany then you're exporting to Germany, same with France, Netherlands, Belgium etc...

I think in the long run it would be beneficial for UK to switch to euro. It's not like British economy is going to collapse if it doesn't but holding on to something because of conservatism or national pride when other option offer practical benefits isn't the best way to go.

[Incongruous]

Practicality, what a wonderful word, hardly one EUrope can be maiking however

[Brenus]

“all valid reasons for a non-Brit to want us in the euro”. So, only non-Brits working in UK go in holidays in Spain, programme their Stag Night in Amsterdam, have relatives in Ireland and buy properties in France, Spain and even Croatia. I did notice a lot of English in Calais, mind you. Ok, they could have been Irish or Welsh….

[JR-]

Exporting benefit of inflation is overrated. Sure it's there, but quite limited, it's beneficial between let's say 1-3%, depending on the circumstances. Over that cons far outweigh the pros. But let's say it's beneficial, doesn't matter how high. It will make British goods cheaper on the continent, thus stimulation British exports but at the same time it will make continental goods more expensive in Britain, and you're importing more from Germany then you're exporting to Germany, same with France, Netherlands, Belgium etc...

I think in the long run it would be beneficial for UK to switch to euro. It's not like British economy is going to collapse if it doesn't but holding on to something because of conservatism or national pride when other option offer practical benefits isn't the best way to go.

against the damage euro harmonisation will cause to the competitive advantage of our financial sector?

the financial sector in the city of london brings in to the exchequer nearly one third of corporation tax tax from the whole of the UK.

you can just see how happy frankfurt and paris would be to see london adopt the same financial regulations as the rest of the continent.

[JR-]

“all valid reasons for a non-Brit to want us in the euro”. So, only non-Brits working in UK go in holidays in Spain, programme their Stag Night in Amsterdam, have relatives in Ireland and buy properties in France, Spain and even Croatia. I did notice a lot of English in Calais, mind you. Ok, they could have been Irish or Welsh….

*shrugs* i do most of those things without any great inconvenience.

[JR-]

I did not manage to find those numbers either.

I couldn't even find these numbers, and am happy you did. Your Google-fu beat mine.


I am looking forward to the numbers for services with confidence, though.

Maybe the UK government realised that they were made up for a large part by Britain's finance and banking sector, and quickly erased all trace of them from the books.

I think i have an answer at last, courtesy of the Office of National Statistics, and it is one-half rather than four-fifths:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=72

The EU represents 52.42% of the total value of trade conducted by Britain. :)

I wonder how that compares with EU nations as a percentage value of total trade within and without the EU?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks for those numbers, Furunculu, here and in the Euro thread.


And I've got some good news for you! I browsed that UK statistics site. It appears that the percentage of UK trade with the EU is shrinking.
Can't refind that page for a link. The numbers are, on top of my head, if 2003 is 100, than 2008 trade with the EU is 110, and with non-EU is 130.

I assume this is a Europe-wide phenomenon, based on the increasing economic presence of the large emerging markets.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'll present you with a new argument as well: US and other foreing investments in Britain. US companies prefer the British Isles for their European investments. (Actually, they simply prefer the UK. With Ireland subsidising market share by grossly undercutting British and European corporate tax rates, courtesy of and funded by the EU)
The UK attracts more US investment than the next four countries combined - France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The United Kingdom's economy is dependent on foreign trade. The government supports free and unrestricted trade and has championed international trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the EU. Because of its dependency on trade, the British have few restrictions on foreign trade and investment. Of the kingdom's 500 largest corporations, 60 are American. The United Kingdom's main trade partner is the EU. Some 58 percent of the kingdom's exports go to EU nations. Its main EU partners are Germany, which accounts for 12 percent of exports; France, with 12 percent; and the Netherlands with 8 percent. The United Kingdom's largest single market is the United States, which accounts for 13 percent of its exports. The United States also provides 14 percent of the kingdom's imports. As a combined group, the EU provides 53 percent of British imports. Germany provides 13 percent, France 9 percent, the Netherlands 7 percent, and Italy 5 percent. The United Kingdom has trade treaties with 90 different nations.

The strength of the British pound and the state of the economy has made the United Kingdom an attractive investment area for foreign investors. The kingdom is the world's second-largest destination for investment. About 30 percent of all foreign investment going into the EU is directed at the United Kingdom. The British also invest heavily in other nations. In 1998, the United Kingdom had US$120 billion invested abroad. The United States is the largest single investor in the United Kingdom and accounts for 44 percent of all foreign investment in the United Kingdom. In 1997, U.S. investment in the United Kingdom amounted to US$138.8 billion. The total U.S. investment in the United Kingdom is more than the total American investment in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands combined. In overall terms, foreign investment accounted for 5 percent of GDP.

For several decades, the United Kingdom has had a trade deficit, as it has imported more goods and services than it has exported. In 1998, the trade deficit amounted to US$35 billion or 1.5 percent of GDP. However, because of the attractiveness of the kingdom to foreign investors, new investment capital continues to allow the British to fund this deficit because the new investment monies exceed the money the kingdom loses through its trade deficit.

Foreign companies provide 40 percent of British exports and they have a significant presence in the manufacturing sector.

It is a brilliant position for the UK and Ireland to be in. The two behemoths of the world economy, the US and the EU, conduct their business through the British Isles. Because both flows of goods and investments meet in Britain, services are located in London as well. And because the services infrastructure for global trade in London is virtually unmatched because of it, the Asians and Middle Easterners find their way to London too. This is how Britain makes its money, how the UK utilises its cultural and economic global position to its great advantage.

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.

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.



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?

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 strenght of Europe.

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.

[JR-]

Thanks for those numbers, Furunculu, here and in the Euro thread.


And I've got some good news for you! I browsed that UK statistics site. It appears that the percentage of UK trade with the EU is shrinking.
Can't refind that page for a link. The numbers are, on top of my head, if 2003 is 100, than 2008 trade with the EU is 110, and with non-EU is 130.

I assume this is a Europe-wide phenomenon, based on the increasing economic presence of the large emerging markets.

my pleasure, and many thanks for your info, more info is always good.

though i should point out, that i am not necessarily pleased that trade with any party should decline, what pleases me is that we trade with everyone possible to the maximum possible extent. but i believe you are right that it does reflect the importance of the emerging markets especially given our service export bias.

[Louis VI the Fat]

p.s. my name is Furunculus, but i was forced to create a new account with a "5" at the end because i lost the password

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.

[JR-]

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.

[JR-]

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.

[Brenus]

“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…

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

[Husar]

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.

Hmm, a girl with a Wunder Boner.

[JR-]

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…

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:

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.

[Vladimir]

Hmm, a girl with a Wunder Boner.

A girl who likes arrogant and rude women!

[Thermal]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

[Thermal]

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

the OP i think ....

[Furunculus]

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