Is Britain about to leave the EU?
- Thread starter Mega Tsunami
- Start date
- Status
In western Europe ? Because Germany started from so low in 1945 that their growth until the 80s is artificially inflated. France started slowing down around that time, so I doubt we've done "far better" than you. Italy and Spain might have but I'd like to see actual numbers, and they aren't better than you know anyway. Any other country is not big enough to compare to an economy like the UK.
Yes, I like the point about accounting for where a country starts in assessing the meaning of its GDP growth.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
I wonder, what might European countries have done in the late 70s that put an end to the "glorious 30"? It must have been something that they did back then and then kept insisting on, until now...
EnglishEdward
Deity
I never said that I believed in it.
There are three aspects for comparators:
(a) UK before EEC v. UK after EEC end 1972
(b) UK v other member states after 1972
(c) UK and member states v rest of world after 1972
And none of them look good for the case for EEC membership.
Akka
Moody old mage.
They let the UK enters the EU and wreck its purpose ?
Then stop calling it a promise, as if you have been grievously offended by the affair.
EnglishEdward
Deity
I am looking for the evidence of the benefits. I refer to the post.
The pro EU posters have had over 24 hours to provide an example.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
To add to this; it is important to remember that before WWII Germany was rather poor. In modern terms it would be roughly equivalent to South Africa or Iran. German farmers were especially poor and largely reliant on traditional labor-intensive production. A lot of Germany's growth came from freeing up farm labor via mechanization for work in cities coupled with a robust guest worker program. The UK had more or less redirected as much labor from farming to industry as was possible by the end of WWII so there was less to add to GDP. France was in a similar position to Germany with regards to redirecting labor.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
:shrug:
In The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy Adam Tooze compares the interwar German economy to a modern South Africa/ Iran status. I can break out the data if you want but I'm inclined to trust him on the matters of the Nazi/Weimar economy.
Who knows? It's a pretty pointless question.
You know what, I'll give you one.
The whole immigration flow has been handled outside the UK for years (decades ?) thanks to deals that would probably not have been made with the UK outside the EU. I'm sure the people of Dover will be thrilled to meet all the migrants next year.
EnglishEdward
Deity
That is a bilateral, and not, an EU deal.
I admit that it is a nuisance to the French there though.
Modern day South Africa and Iran aren't too bad.
I think REDY's point was that pre-WWII Germany was economically ahead of, say, the Soviet Union.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Sure, but nobody would say they are particularly wealthy -especially compared with the UK/America/France.
Not really; especially given the sheer size of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union possessed far larger reserves of natural resources than Germany, had a larger population to draw upon, and vastly more land to take advantage of mechanized agriculture.
Germany possessed no oil reserves, was forced to import from elsewhere a large proportion of its iron and animal feed, and had a large portion of the population tied up in agriculture on farms that were too small to benefit from mechanization.
But this is probably more deserving of its own thread.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
It's actually funny to see the EU being assaulted by the supporters of Le Pen/Farage/Trump or whatever the name of your local troll head because it has absolutely no power whatsoever on anything.
As a matter of fact, it would really be interesting to see Britain or the Netherlands leaving it exactly because... it wouldn't change anything. Instead of "contributing to the EU budget", they would "pay access to the free market". And that would cost them the same (if not even more). Great difference.
For an awckward reason I can't figure out, some people believe that our shared issues such as the debt crisis or the refugees crisis would magically disappear without the EU. They simply won't. And there would be no other way to address those issues than in organizing meeting where the 78 leaders of European countries would talk about it together, exactly like it happens nowadays. And they won't take any single relevant decision because "national interests are first", exactly like it happens nowadays.
Criticizing the EU in 2016 is just about beating a dead horse. Since the treaty of Nice in 2001, the EU commission can't even submit proposals to the European leaders, they decide alone of everything according to their own ideas, which means the situation is exactly the same as if there wouldn't be any EU to start with. And since the French and Dutch voted "no" to their referendum on the EU constitution, the idea for a more integrated system has been definitly burried. And it won't come up again as those who wanted so, the ww2 generation, are all dead.
If you're not satisfied with the current system, destroying the EU wouldn't solve the problem. It would just let things as they are.
As a matter of fact, it would really be interesting to see Britain or the Netherlands leaving it exactly because... it wouldn't change anything. Instead of "contributing to the EU budget", they would "pay access to the free market". And that would cost them the same (if not even more). Great difference.
For an awckward reason I can't figure out, some people believe that our shared issues such as the debt crisis or the refugees crisis would magically disappear without the EU. They simply won't. And there would be no other way to address those issues than in organizing meeting where the 78 leaders of European countries would talk about it together, exactly like it happens nowadays. And they won't take any single relevant decision because "national interests are first", exactly like it happens nowadays.
Criticizing the EU in 2016 is just about beating a dead horse. Since the treaty of Nice in 2001, the EU commission can't even submit proposals to the European leaders, they decide alone of everything according to their own ideas, which means the situation is exactly the same as if there wouldn't be any EU to start with. And since the French and Dutch voted "no" to their referendum on the EU constitution, the idea for a more integrated system has been definitly burried. And it won't come up again as those who wanted so, the ww2 generation, are all dead.
If you're not satisfied with the current system, destroying the EU wouldn't solve the problem. It would just let things as they are.
You can shrug but its overstatement. In 1900s Germany competed UK in largest european economy. And comparing preww2 economy of Germany to SSSR is like comparing todays US to Turkey - German was better in every aspect, in gdp per capita estimations about twice.
If its about resources, large population and economical potential - in that we can say that Russia is still dominating and South Africa and Iran are comparable to Germany. For centuries in past and today...
In practice South Africa and Iran are on about the level of Mexico.
- Status
