Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Ajidica]

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.

I have Tooze's book right in front of me. For the period 1924-1935 Germany was one of the poorest developed states. Taking US per capita income as 100, Germany was dead on the nose at 50.* They were wealthier than Belgium and Italy (47 and 24 respectively), but were poorer on a per-capita basis than Canada, the UK, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, the Netherlands, France, and Denmark (91, 88, 88, 86, 74, 62, 56, and 53). Contemporary economists ranked German standard of living at half that of America and a third that of the UK. The German economy may have been slightly larger than the UKs* (the data is unclear), but lagged far behind in terms of per capita wealth due to its large and undeveloped agricultural workforce.

If we are talking about total national income, it is important to remember that the UK consisted of more than a dreary damp island with bad food- it was the centerpiece of an empire that controlled 1/5 of the worlds population and 1/4 of its landmass. (Plus it had significant financial influence just about everywhere else.) That was a level of economic might that Germany could never hope to match - especially as Nazi rearmament saw Germany lurching from economic crisis to economic crisis that was barely papered over by their finance minister who was referred to by his contemporaries as "the dark sorcerer of international banking".

In comparison to the Soviet Union for total national income (where USA = 100), the UK was 33, Germany was 27, and the Soviet Union was 22. For the Soviet Union national income, it is worth remembering that the Russian Civil War only ended in 1922 and the time period includes the Soviet famine which would see their national income depressed.

*Obviously all of this carries the caveat that statistics for this time period are not always accurate.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

It won't, just as it does not to Switzerland. Which, mind you, is completely surrounded by EU member countries, unlike the UK. And you are assuming that there will be a free market managed by the EU. I rather doubt the EU will last, because...

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.

... because the EU is already failing at just about everything it was supposed to achieve. Can't handle immigration, can't handle finances, can't handle unemployment, and can't do trade deals that don't benefit some of its member countries at the cost of harming others.
The only thing keeping the EU together is that peculiar inertia which people in power manifest whenever faced with the failure of their policies and a lack of "safe" (for their own position in power) alternatives.

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.

They will take relevant actions to address their national problems exactly because national interests will then again come first. As they should. Without the shield of the EU to excuse policy failures ("there was no alternative", "we had to go along", "we were outvoted", "we did our best",...) those national leaders will be held accountable before their own people for what they do. And they will know it.

What reasoning can lead someone to claim that national interests should not come first for a nation's government? Only some religious or ideological motive could justify such a position. Does the EU stand for a religion, or an ideology? I must ask because I don't see any. The arguments for the EU were always presented as economic-technical (single market & centralized bureaucracy -> some economic magic -> guaranteed better lives for everyone). But technocrats are not very good at inspiring following. Especially when they don't have the promised goods to show.

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 that is so, can you point out the differences between the proposed "EU constitutional treaty", and the later Treaty of Lisbon?

 

[AdrienIer]

What reasoning can lead someone to claim that national interests should not come first for a nation's government?

To the point of the whole area doing worse because of that national interest ? Well for example if all countries had agreed to try and control global warming 10 years ago we'd be much safer. The national interest of the US, China, Russia and a few others are going to cost the rest of us. I say that their national interest should not have been the only thing their nation's government cared about.

 

[innonimatu]

If the case is about a global problem but some countries would shoulder a disproportionate effort to change things, then let the rest of the world make it worth their while to change things. It's called diplomacy.
And if the case is that you believe that its is a global problem, but they do not, convince them. Or force them.

It's international relations as it always was. And I don't see where the EU changed anything for the better in this. With the EU you diplomats arguing not just over the issues at hand, but also over the additional procedures (EU procedures) for doing diplomacy.

 

[AdrienIer]

That's exactly what Marla_Singer was saying, destroying the EU would remove the bureaucracy but the problems won't go away, so the leaders will have to meet all the time to handle things just like it is now, and more importantly just as inefficiently as it is now. So nothing will change. Conclusion : destroying the EU isn't the solution, as it won't change anything for the better.

 

[innonimatu]

That's exactly what Marla_Singer was saying, destroying the EU would remove the bureaucracy but the problems won't go away, so the leaders will have to meet all the time to handle things just like it is now, and more importantly just as inefficiently as it is now. So nothing will change. Conclusion : destroying the EU isn't the solution, as it won't change anything for the better.

The EU bureaucracy is a big contributor, a bit part, of the problems of Europe, and I've said why already. It limits the possible policy choices of each country, trying to enforce for each issue a policy that is not optimal for the different countries.

 

[Marla_Singer]

It won't, just as it does not to Switzerland. Which, mind you, is completely surrounded by EU member countries, unlike the UK.

Switzerland pays hundreds of millions of euros to the EU every year in order to be part of Schenghen. Norway pays hundreds of millions of euros as well in order to have access to the EU free market. Those are small countries. If the UK would leave the EU, the simple right to keep their access to the EU free market would cost them billions a year.

They will take relevant actions to address their national problems exactly because national interests will then again come first. As they should. Without the shield of the EU to excuse policy failures ("there was no alternative", "we had to go along", "we were outvoted", "we did our best",...) those national leaders will be held accountable before their own people for what they do. And they will know it.

What reasoning can lead someone to claim that national interests should not come first for a nation's government?

Let's take an example: the refugees crisis. It's clearly not in the Greek national interests to spend millions every year to prevent refugees to come in, when actually the dudes just want to continue their way to Germany or Finland. Hence the Greek national interests would be to simply let them flow to Germany and Finland. Is this in the interest of Finland? No it's not, but why would Greece care? National interests come first!

Our countries are not bubbles with no contact with the rest of the world. We do share common interests. Exactly like in an appartment building, it's in the interest of everyone if the elevator actually works. No matter if there's an EU or not, what will happen to the neighbour will necessarily have an impact on us. You just have to live with this.

 

[Marla_Singer]

The EU bureaucracy is a big contributor, a bit part, of the problems of Europe, and I've said why already. It limits the possible policy choices of each country, trying to enforce for each issue a policy that is not optimal for the different countries.

The EU is just a co-ownership trustee. If the co-owners of the building don't want to pay for maintenance, then the building will be a mess and everyone will hate each other. If we can't find an agreement together, that's all the fault of the trustee!

 

[really]

It won't, just as it does not to Switzerland. Which, mind you, is completely surrounded by EU member countries, unlike the UK. And you are assuming that there will be a free market managed by the EU. I rather doubt the EU will last, because

...

They will take relevant actions to address their national problems exactly because national interests will then again come first. As they should. Without the shield of the EU to excuse policy failures ("there was no alternative", "we had to go along", "we were outvoted", "we did our best",...) those national leaders will be held accountable before their own people for what they do

I am bemused at the idea of the UK not being surrounded by the EU.

When these national interests have an international dimension how do you see negotiations going?
We took a decision in our national interests and spoke to France or whoever. They considered their national interest and said no so we are stuck with the suboptimal position.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I am bemused at the idea of the UK not being surrounded by the EU.

Really!

With the sole exception of the land border in Ireland with the Republic,
the UK is entirely surrounded by the world ocean, that also surrounds
Australasia, Japan and the Philippines, rather than by the rest of the EU.

 

[AdrienIer]

Ah yes, you're surrounded by water, not by the rest of Europe. I'm surprised you didn't also mention that there's a layer of air between you and us. Anything to avoid saying that the mighty English* people might have anything to do with us puny continentals.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Really!

With the sole exception of the land border in Ireland with the Republic,
the UK is entirely surrounded by the world ocean, that also surrounds
Australasia, Japan and the Philippines, rather than by the rest of the EU.

Ironically though, Germany exports 3 times more to the rest of the world than Britain does. So obviously belonging to Europe doesn't prevent them to feel the appeal of the wide open seas.

And for the matter, the world ocean surrounds everything, even continents. We're as much connected to the Philippines from Bordeaux than we are from Liverpool.

 

[dutchfire]

The EU bureaucracy is a big contributor, a bit part, of the problems of Europe, and I've said why already. It limits the possible policy choices of each country, trying to enforce for each issue a policy that is not optimal for the different countries.

The Westminster bureaucracy is a big contributor, a big part, of the problems of the UK. It limits the possible policy choices of each country, trying to enforce for each issue a policy that is not optimal for the different countries.

 

[innonimatu]

Switzerland pays hundreds of millions of euros to the EU every year in order to be part of Schenghen. Norway pays hundreds of millions of euros as well in order to have access to the EU free market. Those are small countries. If the UK would leave the EU, the simple right to keep their access to the EU free market would cost them billions a year.

Switzerland's costs with its EU treaties are about 1/5 of the UK's. I knew that when I wrote my previous post. Check the numbers if you doubt me.

Let's take an example: the refugees crisis. It's clearly not in the Greek national interests to spend millions every year to prevent refugees to come in, when actually the dudes just want to continue their way to Germany or Finland. Hence the Greek national interests would be to simply let them flow to Germany and Finland. Is this in the interest of Finland? No it's not, but why would Greece care? National interests come first!

Our countries are not bubbles with no contact with the rest of the world. We do share common interests. Exactly like in an appartment building, it's in the interest of everyone if the elevator actually works. No matter if there's an EU or not, what will happen to the neighbour will necessarily have an impact on us. You just have to live with this.

That's an interesting speech and an interesting example you sue, considering that Finland's position regarding the ongoing crisis in Greece - the deepest and longest economic recession in an industrialized country in a century, we're talking 50% youth unemployment still - was a big "screw you". And Indeed that was the EU's stance towards Greece, and remains so. The Greeks only remain inside the EU because they have their financial system held hostage and many still (wrongly) believe that the EU's directorate (the ECB, commission and the bigger countries' governments) will change its stance.
Fortunately the UK avoided that mistake.

When these national interests have an international dimension how do you see negotiations going?
We took a decision in our national interests and spoke to France or whoever. They considered their national interest and said no so we are stuck with the suboptimal position.

Depending on the issue you can tell the French to sod off and deal with someone else. The world is big, and diplomacy was always an art of shopping around for the better deal. As a member of the EU you go to a negotiation a priori stuck with the French and the other "EU partners" as unavoidable counterparts, on a very large number of issues - needlessly.

Ah yes, you're surrounded by water, not by the rest of Europe. I'm surprised you didn't also mention that there's a layer of air between you and us. Anything to avoid saying that the mighty English* people might have anything to do with us puny continentals.

You know what they said... "Fog in the Channel - continent cut off." At least the UK, thanks to that water, didn't make it a national sport of being routinely overrun by germans.
A majority of your countrymen may be ready to remain in the EU out of cowardice to go it alone (the EU brought peace... pfff!), but you'll find that cowardice is not universal. And that the promise is false: the current EU, if it is not disassembled now, is peace for 20 years. It's increasing national antagonists within the EU, without any escape valve that traditional diplomacy which allowed for shifting alliances provided.

 

[innonimatu]

double post

 

[Arakhor]

Are you sure you're not British, Innonimatu? As that quaint reference you made implies, one of our national sports is jeering at foreigners and hating on much of the EU.

 

[AdrienIer]

At least the UK, thanks to that water, didn't make it a national sport of being routinely overrun by germans.

So you're saying that without the water the UK would have been conquered by Germany many times ? Interesting take on things.

Not going to answer the last part of your message, the moderators might kick me out

 

[Mega Tsunami]

The Westminster bureaucracy is a big contributor, a big part, of the problems of the UK. It limits the possible policy choices of each country, trying to enforce for each issue a policy that is not optimal for the different countries.

Hence the Scottish referendum.
And besides, we have had three hundred years of integration which has meant the differences between us are very small indeed.
The differences Britain and Europe are massive in comparison.
Which is one of the reasons we just don’t belong in the EU.
And before AdrienIer gets on his/her high horse - I don’t mean we are better (or worse); we are just different.
Viva la difference, one might say.

So you're saying that without the water the UK would have been conquered by Germany many times ?

And by Napoleon. And if we had been invaded we might understand your hell bent wish to give away all your democratic rights to the undemocratic EU.
As it is, we weren’t so we don’t.

 

[Akka]

Viva la difference, one might say.

Considering the amount of time I see it, it seems the whole anglosphere is unable to get that "viva" is spanish, not french

And by Napoleon. And if we had been invaded we might understand your hell bent wish to give away all your democratic rights to the undemocratic EU.
As it is, we weren’t so we don’t.

The amusing thing is, this "undemocratic EU" is a favourite blame, but considering all decisions are taken by democratically elected officials, it's just a buzzword. The European Parliament is no less democratic than your own.

 

[Agent327]

Hence the Scottish referendum.
And besides, we have had three hundred years of integration which has meant the differences between us are very small indeed.
The differences Britain and Europe are massive in comparison.

That must be why the UK wanted to join the EC then.

Which is one of the reasons we just don’t belong in the EU.

So 30 odd years of integration didn't work out for you, did it?

And if we had been invaded we might understand your hell bent wish to give away all your democratic rights to the undemocratic EU.

Looking at the recent deliberations about 'concessions' to the UK you might have a point. Otherwise, not so much. But do keep the good old rant.