What if Britain left the EU?

sorcerer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
26,920
Likes
98,472
Country flag
Budget rows, referendum pledges, Ukip on the rise "¦ is Britain heading for an EU exit? It would certainly be a messy divorce after 44 years. But what would it mean for our politics, prosperity and cultural life?

In a rare uncalculating moment, Boris Johnson wrote last year that, if Britain finally ended its "sterile debate" over Europe by leaving the EU, it would quickly discover "that most of our problems are not caused by Brussels, but by chronic British short-termism, inadequate management, sloth, low skills and a culture of easy gratification and under-investment".

How true, but that discovery would not be the end of the matter if David Cameron's promised in/out referendum in 2017 resulted in a Brexit majority. The euphoria that half the population of Scotland came close to feeling in their own independence referendum last September would rapidly dissipate as familiar problems resurfaced and new ones popped up.

The country would be divided – literally so if Scotland took its cue to do a Scexit and stay in the EU, generating tensions in Northern Ireland, though probably not in Wales. The defeated minority would be frightened and sullen, assorted dreamers and zealots would rush to start creating their vision of a restored Merrie England. Or of an offshore free enterprise hub, the Hong Kong of the Atlantic, as much a fantasy as the socialist and green republic that would be sought by others.

Everyone would claim copyright on Blake's Jerusalem and political parties would scramble to adjust to the new realities. After 44 years of half-hearted membership, there would be no going back, but a lot of time-consuming unbundling would need urgent attention, with new treaties negotiated to project essential national interests, much as the famously independent Swiss and Norwegians spend time negotiating in Brussels.

If the Scottish parallel is any guide, Ukip would enjoy an SNP-style surge of popularity, claiming the credit for forcing the Tories – would Cameron still be leader, or would Mayor Johnson move in for the kill? – to make good their pledges. Whether they recommended yes or no in 2017, the Tories would be seen to have messed things up: neither Cameron nor George Osborne actually want to leave.

It is hard to see such a vote doing Labour, the pro-EU party since its mid-80s U-turn, much good. Ukip's new recruits are becoming more sophisticated, but Nigel ("Mine's a pint") Farage is not likely to be up to the task: the technocrats in Whitehall and perhaps the City would have to sort out the messy, bitter divorce as best they could.

None of this would be happening in a vacuum. For 400 years, Europe dominated world affairs, but that phase is over. China will soon be as uninterested as it was when European merchants tried to sell it things it didn't want in the 16th century. The US, busy with China, will turn away from its enfeebled allies, even Britain, no longer its door to Europe. Only Russia will retain an urgent geopolitical interest and, on current trends, it will not be benign.

In time, Britain and its component nations will settle down, probably to a lower standard of living, at least for a while. It depends whether London's huge financial services sector decides to stay put or decamp to Frankfurt, Dublin or Zurich. That depends on how unstable Brexit Britain's politics become – and what its tax regime is. Insular and xenophobic, or outward-looking and confident? Fingers will be tightly crossed.

And how will Europe regard "Perfidious Albion's" latest double-cross, its retreat from cooperation and integration to the offshore island? With disappointment and anger, most likely. British critics of the way the EU runs – its courts, its imperfect single market and bureaucracy, its recession-dogged single currency – make some excellent points as well as some self-deluded ones. Will the Brussels elite say, "Gosh, you're right" after a Brexit vote? Or pull up their own drawbridge and drive hard economic bargains with the quitters in London? The latter option is surely more likely.

Whatever they say, a British departure will be deeply damaging to the EU's reputation and self-esteem, unbalancing the north/south, left/right, statist/free enterprise scales. "Don't leave us alone with the French," some German politicians whisper as Paris again ducks structural economic reform so long as its bond market commands enough confidence to borrow more.

The EU was constructed, mainly by Frenchmen, to hide German strength and French weakness. It is not hard to imagine the project starting to break up under the pressures generated by a British departure"¦ nationalist and Eurosceptic parties of both left and right – even ultra-respectable Germany has them now – will assert more selfish short-term interest.

Already Germany's austere Bundesbank is preventing Mario Draghi, head of the European Central Bank, doing more to ease deflationary pressures and unemployment in ways the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve have been free to do. Huge sacrifices have been made to keep the EU project going – for reasons that constantly need remembering, even in the centenary year of 1914 – but they have been sustained by hope and optimism for a better future.

If a British departure punctures that fragile belief, Europe could slide back to where it was at the height of its imperial glory: divided, feuding, dominated by a single power, Germany, in breach of four centuries of British foreign policy, but threatened by another – Russia (or anyone else who comes along). Only this time there will be no imperial glory, not much money and less defence. Boris Johnson's "sterile debate" would be over, but the problems he identified would remain. MW
Economics: Voters may go with their gut – should Britain control its own destiny or be part of a bigger family?

It's the spring of 2017 and preparations for Britain's in-out European Union referendum are in full swing. The side campaigning for exit says that Britain will not just survive but thrive once it is unshackled from Brussels. The side campaigning to stay part of the EU says the country will be poorer and jobs will be lost.

When the big day comes, the recent poor performance of the eurozone economies proves crucial. Voters are unimpressed by the argument that it is in Britain's interests to remain part of an economic bloc that has suffered a decade of stagnation and double-digit joblessness, and vote to leave.

What happens next is already a matter of great contention. The CBI says [pdf] membership of the EU adds between £62bn and £78bn to the UK economy, the equivalent of £3,000 per household. A report for Ukip by the economist Tim Congdon [pdf] says the annual cost to Britain of membership is £165-170bn, around 11% of the economy's output.

On one thing the two sides agree. The fact that Britain is not a member of the single currency would make exit easier than it would be for, say, the Netherlands or France. There would be no need to switch currencies or to redenominate debts from euros into sterling. The Bank of England would set interest rates, as it does now.

But that does not mean that the divorce would be easy and quick. Britain's trading relationship with its former EU partners would be central to the negotiations that would follow a yes vote. At present, around 30% of the UK's gross domestic product is exported in the form of goods and services. Of that, around 45% goes to the EU. As a result, Britain exports roughly 14% of its GDP to the EU.

The size and complexity of Britain's business links with Europe mean that discussions would take place about what sort of trade access there would be after withdrawal. Optimists say Britain's hefty trade deficit with the rest of the EU might help these discussions. Germany, for example, exports more to Britain than it imports. The manufacturers of Bavaria and the Ruhr would want an agreement that guaranteed reciprocal market access.

In reality, the argument might be a bit more complicated. The Open Europe thinktank says a UK exit is likely to produce "an emotional response" from other EU countries, in which regret will be mixed with anger. Europe's willingness to cut Britain a deal on trade in goods may not be matched with the same sort of enthusiasm for a deal on services, where the UK runs a surplus with the rest of Europe. Germany and France have long coveted some of the financial services business that currently goes on in the City, and may adopt a tough approach.

Those who take a more pessimistic view about what life would be like outside the EU say none of the alternative models are attractive.

Norway is not a member of the EU but is a member of the European Economic Area, which means it is part of the European single market. But access comes at a price: Norway has to accept EU laws and regulations without having a say in how they are made.

Switzerland provides an alternative model. It is neither a member of the EU nor the EEA, but has negotiated agreements with Brussels that give it tariff-free access to the single market for its exports of goods. Exports of services, including financial services, are not covered. Both the Swiss and the Norwegians make contributions to the EU budget.

A truly clean break with the EU involves the so-called WTO-only option. The World Trade Organisation forbids member states from discriminatory trade practices, and this would provide Britain with the same access to the EU as, say, China or the US. But the WTO-only option would not cover financial services and would result in a 10% tariff on UK car exports to Europe. Toyota and Nissan, which set up plants in the UK in order to access the world's biggest market, are worried by this prospect. Inward investment could be threatened, although the impact of being outside the EU would be negated if foreign companies still believed Britain was a good place to do business or if the Bank of England took action to boost growth.

The argument about inward investment highlights three key issues about the in-out debate. Firstly, life would go on in some shape or form. Secondly, things would probably neither be as good nor as bad as the ultras on either side predict. Finally, the issues are so complex that voters may go with their gut instincts – whether Britain should control its own destiny or be part of a family of European nations – rather than rely on a narrow cost-benefit analysis. LE

Culture: At its worst, our national identity could become parochial and inward-looking

If Britain left the EU, it would necessarily mean that more than 50% of the population had bought into the vision of a rightwing and isolationist government. That would in itself have huge cultural ramifications.

Some of these consequences would be practical. First, British artistic life is to a great degree predicated on its European links. Many of our most treasured artforms are intrinsically international and European: German conductors; Italian singers; Romanian ballerinas; co-productions between opera houses in Spain and London; exhibitions organised jointly between Paris and Edinburgh. The ease of movement of people, objects and projects between the EU and Britain would be entirely dependent on whatever provision this notional rightwing, isolationist government might make. Cultural traffic between Britain and the rump EU might be totally unaffected – or not. According to Alex Beard, chief executive of the Royal Opera House, "Anything that made it more difficult to trade with the EU – trade tariffs, immigration limits and visas and so on – would damage our operation. The majority of our co-production partners are European, as is a significant minority of our workforce at all levels."

Second, European financial support has an important, if comparatively small, impact on British art. For example, the EU's Media Programme put funding into films such as The King's Speech and This is England; in 2011, £5.3m was spent on helping UK films, such as Ken Loach's The Angel's Share, gain release in Europe. The EU also gives significant support to literary translation (£2.8m this year). Through other funding streams, projects such as the Royal Opera House's training and rehearsal centre in Thurrock, Kent – a significant intervention in the local economy and culture – would not have got off the ground.

However, such considerations could well be minor compared with the overarching effects of the kind of severe change in the cultural and political weather that would come with exiting Europe – the EU being, in its bones, an expression of openness (however inchoate and ungraspable) to the Europe beyond our shores.

Identifying ourselves as European means being part of an artery connecting us not just to Shakespeare and Elgar but to Beethoven, Manet, Cervantes and Aeschylus. The big question is what kind of national identity would assert itself if we went it alone. At worst, this would be something unattractively "little British", parochial and inward-looking. Cultural life would necessarily reflect political culture, as it always does, however subtly. Even though English arts funding operates at arm's length from government, government policy still sets the direction of travel. If New Labour's theme for the arts was (in a word) diversity and the coalition's is philanthropy, who knows what a Ukip/Conservative-flavoured arts policy would consist of, if anything. Arts in the devolved nations would be insulated from any direct results of cultural policy change in Westminster, though they might find themselves negotiating strengthened nationalism in their own polities. On the other hand, minorities such as Welsh and Gaelic speakers might not find such a happy home within solitary Britain than as part of a framework of European linguistic and cultural diversity. An isolationist rightwing government would be extremely unlikely to be pro-BBC – our single largest cultural organisation responsible for sustaining a vast amount of our musical and dramatic culture.

What about artists actually making work? The playwright David Greig, as a campaigner for the yes movement in the Scottish referendum, has spent much time pondering nationhood and unions in recent years. "A bit of me is sceptical that it would mean the world would fall in," he says. "But it would just feel embarrassing – generally grim and dispiriting culturally. Clearly no one would be forbidding artists from collaborating with, say, a Belgian artist. But it would feel like such a backwards step."

Who knows what artistic work would be made in such a climate: would British artists from pop musicians to playwrights become a kind of hypercreative internal resistance as they were during the early Thatcher years? There might be all kinds of creative soulsearching about nationhood, and perhaps specifically about English nationhood (one thinks of Jez Butterworth's 2009 play Jerusalem – "an enormously good play that dared to talk about Englishness", in Greig's words; or Jeremy Deller's English Magic, his pointedly titled exhibition for the British pavilion at the Venice Biennale of 2013).

In short, a withdrawal from Europe would be a bleak move in cultural terms – but, in the end, it would be our artists who would help us understand what had brought us to such a pass. CH

source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/04/what-if-britain-left-the-eu-europe-politics-economy-culture
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
According to a study by the South Bank University, more than three million jobs in the UK are reliant upon Britain being in the EU.

There will be a great squeeze because Britain would be staring at a single market – the market in Britain and losing a market of 500 million people.

If Britain votes to leave the EU in a referendum Cameron hopes to hold in 2017, Britain's economy would suffer as banks relocate to Europe and it has to pay for access to the EU single market. There would be no return.

Immigration from Asia and Africa, legal and illegal, will continue since the British have got used to having them to the blue collar jobs for them.

The job loss will be at the white collar and top executive level which are manned by the white folks of Britain.

Good luck to Britain.
 

Android

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
52
Likes
17
Breakup of UK from EU for sure would cause anger as it would be 3rd largest economy of europe exiting the Union.
. The ease of movement of people, objects and projects between the EU and Britain
This is an important point,business would no longer remain so friendly as it is now. And as result would lead job loss as well as some business would like to move into a economy with 600mill people than with just 60million. As the article & @Ray post says...
. Toyota and Nissan, which set up plants in the UK in order to access the world's biggest market, are worried by this prospect
, more than three million jobs in the UK are reliant upon Britain being in the EU.
There will be a great squeeze because Britain would be staring at a single market – the market in Britain and losing a market of 500 million people.
In the short term it would weaken UK's economy,though thing could be brought in line in the later years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
British arrogance of being a superior nation and a superior race that cannot sub shoulders with Europe will only make it worse than when it lost the Empire!

Unless the British realise that they are now just one of the unwashed millions around the world, they are digging their own graves.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Britain doesn't need to be in Europe to strike important trade deals

Excerpt:
Instead what TTIP does is extend the European Single Market model to transatlantic trade. This would mean that rather than freeing up trade, rules would be introduced whereby it is only possible to produce and sell things if they comply with a single standard.

Far from greater economic freedom, under such a system producers start to need permission to produce things. Note how every aspect of economic life the European Single Market touches gets swathed in red tape.

Worse, since permission is needed to produce and sell things, every vested interest begins to lobby to have the rules written to their advantage. Instead of big businesses trying to persuade willing customers to buy their products, they spend their marketing budgets paying lobbyists to rig the rules against the competition and the customer.

It is precisely because the various vested interests are trying to cut cozy deals behind closed doors through TTIP that the negotiations are taking ages.

TTIP is not about free trade. It is crony corporatism at its worst.
Commentary: This makes sense, and I tend to agree that Britain has the right to guard it independence from Brussels, and not only Brussels, but the US as well.
 

HMS Astute

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
802
Likes
232
According to a study by the South Bank University, more than three million jobs in the UK are reliant upon Britain being in the EU.
British people (the voters and feeders of the politicians) literally do care more about how many newly created jobs are being taken by EU/Non-EU immigrants/emigrants. Eastern Europeans. Many people are very concerned about overcrowded hospitals, schools and shortage of housing. How would you feel if you worked your ass off the entire year and paid a huge amount of tax from your annual salary to support the asylum seekers for their food, clothes and accommodations? UK can't deport them as it violates the EU's human rights and foreign policy. I spoke to a girl from Lithuania when i met her at the local vet a while ago, first i thought she was just a regular oversea student or something, and we then continued the conversation and found out that she came to the UK to get a free treatment for her kidney and other problems when she get the treatment in her country tooo. Well, although i felt sorry for her poor health, i was quite put off by the fact that she flew over 1000 miles just to seek the benefit and get free services whilst the hospitals are already crowded with people already here, and of course she is entitled to do so and the system allows her to do such thing according to EU. Only God knows how much (£100,000?) taxpayers' hard earned money is used for people like this, and only Jesus knows how many people are doing the similar things. One of the most fantastic things about being in the EU, innit!

There will be a great squeeze because Britain would be staring at a single market – the market in Britain and losing a market of 500 million people.
UK is the 3rd largest contributor to EU budget, we pay in more than we take out. UK is the 2nd largest economy in EU with massive influence, world's biggest financial centre and largest amount of HQs and 2000 Forbes companies. If the UK left the Evil Union, Merkel has to find other countries to cover the ongoing costs, good luck with the declining France, Italy and crisis in many countries there.

If Britain votes to leave the EU in a referendum Cameron hopes to hold in 2017, Britain's economy would suffer as banks relocate to Europe and it has to pay for access to the EU single market. There would be no return.
London was the premiere and vital global financial centre since before EU was existed. We'd rather pay the access fee and set our own rules, border, and immigration policy.


Immigration from Asia and Africa, legal and illegal, will continue since the British have got used to having them to the blue collar jobs for them.
Nope. The UK will be able to deport them based on the rules made in Westminster, but not in Brussells. Now even the illegal foreign criminals are untouchable...


The job loss will be at the white collar and top executive level which are manned by the white folks of Britain.

Good luck to Britain.
People in the country do not mind good immigrants who come to the UK peacefully and contribute to the economy and fit in with society. Many eastern European immigrants can't and don't even speak English for example and this gives a negative impact on the society. Skilled, educated immigrants with acceptable level of English are warmly welcome in UK, for eg doctors, nurses, engineers, young professionals and graduates from India, China etc. People don't have issues with them as long as they pay tax and do legal jobs and speak English when necessary.

According to a recent report, the immigrants from outside the EU would cost the UK $200 billion over the coming yearsss. You can't even have your own rules for your own country and do your own thing, well that is an another lovely thing about being in the EU innit. This evil union would be a great club to be in if it was just about common market, free trade and free movement within the countries with similar culture, economy, gdp per capita, living standard and income etc. But, the EU has gone too far and is now becoming a complete shithole since it has added many new countries which are too poor. Big cities (especially in London) in wealthy western countries are now experiencing with these poor people, gypsies, homeless and jobless people (also criminals) from Bulgaria, Greece and Romania etc. Illegal African immigrants are also another issue that the UK has to tackle. They jump on the boat and sail across the sea, some of them hide in the back of the lorries to come to UK. If they are genuine refugees, they should seek the asylum since in the first country they arrive for eg france or italy, but hell no, they try to pass these countries to end up in the UK. EU would have been great if it was made up of only 10 to 15 wealthy European countries. We should thank Russia for showing an interest to annex Ukraine. We are fully booked and don't want more poor people from eastern europe here.
 
Last edited:

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
I don't mind UK leaving. We build new EU with Germany and welcome Ukraine and Russia to join. UK could stay maritime regional power and stay close ally of US.

 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
I don't mind UK leaving. We build new EU with Germany and welcome Ukraine and Russia to join. UK could stay maritime regional power and stay close ally of US.

What is this pic about?? What do the different colours represent??
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
What is this pic about?? What do the different colours represent??
This one one of the earlier plans for EU with Ukraine and parts of Russia as a part of it. Great Britain was also then considered being not part.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
British people (the voters and feeders of the politicians) literally do care more about how many newly created jobs are being taken by EU/Non-EU immigrants/emigrants. Eastern Europeans. Many people are very concerned about overcrowded hospitals, schools and shortage of housing. How would you feel if you worked your ass off the entire year and paid a huge amount of tax from your annual salary to support the asylum seekers for their food, clothes and accommodations? UK can't deport them as it violates the EU's human rights and foreign policy. I spoke to a girl from Lithuania when i met her at the local vet a while ago, first i thought she was just a regular oversea student or something, and we then continued the conversation and found out that she came to the UK to get a free treatment for her kidney and other problems when she get the treatment in her country tooo. Well, although i felt sorry for her poor health, i was quite put off by the fact that she flew over 1000 miles just to seek the benefit and get free services whilst the hospitals are already crowded with people already here, and of course she is entitled to do so and the system allows her to do such thing according to EU. Only God knows how much (£100,000?) taxpayers' hard earned money is used for people like this, and only Jesus knows how many people are doing the similar things. One of the most fantastic things about being in the EU, innit!
You raise interesting points.

Indeed immigrants or free access to Britain from the rest of the UK does create issues and problems. In fact, all immigrations do, the world over, especially when they burden the system and infrastructure.

Let us analyse immigration, first.

The first immigrants from the subcontinent to Britain were the lascars recruited to replace vacancies in the crews on East Indiamen whilst on voyages in India. Many were then refused passage back, and were marooned in London.

Then, there were also some ayahs, domestic servants and nannies of wealthy British families, who accompanied their employers back to "Blighty" when their stay in Asia came to an end.

After Britain was devastated in WWII and its economy and manufacturing at its nadir, there was the urgent need to fill the shortage of manpower especially for the blue collar jobs. The labour from the colonies came handy. In fact, the British Nationality Act 1948 was passed to allow the 800 million subjects in the British Empire to live and work in the United Kingdom without needing a visa.

Likewise, post WWII, many from countries in the Soviet sphere of influence, especially Poles, were allowed to settle in Britain to make up for the shortage of labour.

So, it would be correct to assume that Britain encouraged immigration for her own self-seeking needs and so when viewed in posterity, she can't complain.

The current influx from the EU is because of the clause in one of the Four Freedoms of the European Union, is the right to the free movement of people and UK is a member of the EU. That has encouraged cheap immigrant EU labour that fill the low paying slots that the British find too demeaning to accept. You may peruse the Telegraph article, 'Cheap immigrant labour has cost blue-collar Britain dear' of 02 Nov 2014.

Therefore, it is hardly the fault of the EU labour and instead that of the British themselves. Now, if the British were ready to fill the slots and at the wages the EU labour gets, I would be surprised if a Briton would give a foreigner preference over his own.

Then there is the question of Britain remaining politically relevant and wear the aura of being one of the great powers of the world. The aura is delusionary, but nonetheless is a reality. Therefore, you have embraced the so called political asylum seekers to appear as Moral Goody Two Shoes. This is a charade, if you don't mind, that feeds fat to the British ego that they are very 'caring and gentlemen like' folks. The political actuality of the charade is that Britain encourages and breeds religious fundamentalists organisation and terrorists, as also anti govt movements against the country of origin, just to further your political agenda of having political leverage to influence the political environment of the target country of these terrorists and organisations. In addition, in some cases it does the new discovered importance of the advantages of the vote bank politics matrix.

Of course, nonetheless I will concede that there is no doubt that all these immigrants would cause enormous complexity and burden the infrastructure in all aspects. There is no doubt about that.

But then, sit back and ponder as to who is responsible for the mess caused.

The Good Book states in Galatians 6:7 ESV
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.

The only way out for the UK is to reduce wages and facilities so that it is no longer attractive for people from Europe to migrate to the UK. As far as non EU immigrants, you have already taken measures that should be effective.

Strengthen all EU Navies and patrol the Mediterranean in strength so that there is a virtual barricade wherein illegals cannot cross over and dissolve into the Europe population and then go onto the UK.

And do not encourage terrorists and fundamentalist organisation to breed in the UK.

UK is the 3rd largest contributor to EU budget, we pay in more than we take out. UK is the 2nd largest economy in EU with massive influence, world's biggest financial centre and largest amount of HQs and 2000 Forbes companies. If the UK left the Evil Union, Merkel has to find other countries to cover the ongoing costs, good luck with the declining France, Italy and crisis in many countries there.
You are the 3rd largest contributor and not the 1st or the 2nd. I am sure the two mentioned leaders before Britain would also grouse that they are also bankrolling the EU and to some extent, UK too. If for nothing else, then, at least by cranking up the British economy through cheap labour.

I am sure if there was a German or a French poster here, he would also add to the woes that Britain is causing them. This blame game goes on.


If I may correct one error, I am afraid Britain is not world's biggest financial centre. It has lost that position, all because of a raft of scandals in the City, uncertainty over Britain's future in the European Union and EU crackdown on bankers' bonuses. The financial capital is now New York.



London was the premiere and vital global financial centre since before EU was existed. We'd rather pay the access fee and set our own rules, border, and immigration policy
You are welcome to do exactly what you wish. None can question that.

It would be of course interesting to see how much of a burden the British taxpayer will be able to shoulder if they quit the EU, when one finds that you are already grousing about how much the taxpayer is shouldering to support the EU, the immigrants and the illegals.

Nope. The UK will be able to deport them based on the rules made in Westminster, but not in Brussells. Now even the illegal foreign criminals are untouchable...
Already you are pandering to the hoodlums who are creating law and order issues and 'grooming' your girls. It is all because of the vote bank. Given the tumult in British politics, where there is no clear mandate and instead the election leading to Coalition, every vote counts and none can be made upset. Given this situation, Britain panders and sweet talks to terrorists, thugs, 'groomers' of British girls, organisations inimical to the Govts of their country of origin and even people like that deranged Abu Hamza al-Masri, who preached Islamic fundamentalism and militant Islamism, exhorted openly in Britain to the killing of all non Muslim and even abused Britain.

Indeed, just today your PM, the public school boy Cameron, said that he expected to see an Asian PM of Britain soon. As if! But it was music to fill the ballot box in this party's favour. Sucking up for votes, that is what it is. The British are following the Indians in vote back politics chemistry. Good that you are now copying your erstwhile colonial subjects and learning how to win elections on mirages that appeal.

Of course, illegals will come in and you can do a sausage about that. Your own Home Office study based on Census 2001 data released in March 2005 estimated a population of between 310,000 and 570,000. You think they came out of a Magician's hat? You have been tightening your Immigration Rules for ages, and so it begs the question that how come the has been going up and up?

People in the country do not mind good immigrants who come to the UK peacefully and contribute to the economy and fit in with society. Many eastern European immigrants can't and don't even speak English for example and this gives a negative impact on the society. Skilled, educated immigrants with acceptable level of English are warmly welcome in UK, for eg doctors, nurses, engineers, young professionals and graduates from India, China etc. People don't have issues with them as long as they pay tax and do legal jobs and speak English when necessary.
Of course, none would mind disciplined, highly skilled, taxpaying immigrants. That goes without saying because they fill the gap where Britain fails to fill. It is all for the good of the Nation.

Yet, interestingly, as per BBC (30 January 2014) the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) found 146,200 job vacancies (22%) last year were unfilled because of inadequate skills, compared with 91,400 (16%) two years earlier. This will seriously affect the economy. How do you think that this will be filled? If is of immediate concern, it will obviously be filled by immigrant entries. And not all skilled jobs are white collar, the only ones that the native white British folks desire.

According to a recent report, the immigrants from outside the EU would cost the UK $200 billion over the coming yearsss. You can't even have your own rules for your own country and do your own thing, well that is an another lovely thing about being in the EU innit.
Isn't that the refrain that we hear from Scotland and Wales too?

It is always a give and take if one wants to improve one's lot when competing in the global village. A united voice speaks more and gets more than a lone voice.

That is why the US, EU and NATO has a voice in the international fora, the voice that Russia has lost and through means, fair and foul, is trying to regain. Such is the importance of being a Union of nations standing as One.

Britain, in a standalone mode, would be an international nonentity. Already she has drawn rather caustic comments from China.


This evil union would be a great club to be in if it was just about common market, free trade and free movement within the countries with similar culture, economy, gdp per capita, living standard and income etc. But, the EU has gone too far and is now becoming a complete shithole since it has added many new countries which are too poor. Big cities (especially in London) in wealthy western countries are now experiencing with these poor people, gypsies, homeless and jobless people (also criminals) from Bulgaria, Greece and Romania etc. Illegal African immigrants are also another issue that the UK has to tackle. They jump on the boat and sail across the sea, some of them hide in the back of the lorries to come to UK. If they are genuine refugees, they should seek the asylum since in the first country they arrive for eg france or italy, but hell no, they try to pass these countries to end up in the UK. EU would have been great if it was made up of only 10 to 15 wealthy European countries. We should thank Russia for showing an interest to annex Ukraine. We are fully booked and don't want more poor people from eastern europe here.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, life was "nasty, brutish, and short" in the words made famous by Thomas Hobbes, the famous apologist for Absolute Monarchy. People worked in subsistence labour on the farms and occasionally famines would occur and they would starve to death.

The Industrial Revolution brought some relief from the horrid times before it, even if it was not perfect. And who assisted the Industrial Revolution? It was the wealth and natural resources of the Colonies.

This may not appear pleasant but it is worth a dekko
Modern economic growth first emerged in Britain about the time of the Industrial Revolution, with its cotton textile factories, urban industrialization and export orientated industrialization. A period of economic growth, industrial diversification and export orientation preceded the Industrial Revolution. This export orientation revolved around an Americanization of British trade for which the slave colonies of the Caribbean were central. The Eric Williams' explored the extent to which this export economy based on West Indian slavery contributed to the coming of the Industrial Revolution. His claim that profits from the slave trade were crucial to the Industrial Revolution has not stood up to criticial evaluation. Nonetheless, modern speculations regarding endogenous growth plausibly postulate that manufacturing, urbanization, and a powerful merchant class all have a favourable impact for growth.
Slavery, the British Atlantic Economy and the Industrial Revolution | Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers | Working Papers
{quote] India's Role in the Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain during 1775–1850. It gave birth to modern industry – a new system of production based on machines and factories. For the Industrial Revolution to happen, three things were needed:

1. Capital – to build the machines and factories
2. Raw materials – to produce the goods in the factories
3. Market – to sell the manufactured goods

All three were needed in large amounts for the Industrial Revolution to kick off:

1. Capital: After the Industrial Revolution started, the huge profits it generated could provide the capital for further industrialisation. That is, the process could become self-sustaining. But how was the process to begin in the first place? Where could such a large amount of money be got from?

2. Raw materials: The Industrial Revolution needed vast amounts of raw materials at cheap prices. Where were they to be got from?

3. Market: Finally, a vast captive market was needed to sell the manufactured goods at a handsome profit. Where was it to be found?

The first country to answer these three questions would be the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. In the second half of the 18th century, one country did find the answer to these three questions: Britain.

And its answer was India.

On 23 June 1757, the English East India Company defeated Siraj-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Bengal, in the Battle of Plassey. The British thus became masters of east India (Bengal, Bihar, Orissa) – a prosperous region with a flourishing agriculture, industry and trade.

The East India Company started collecting revenue from this region and sending it to Britain. This provided the capital. It also started seizing raw cotton from the cotton farmers and sending it to Britain. This provided the raw material. Finally, it brought the manufactured textiles from Britain into India – without any duties or tariffs – and sold them here. This was their free market.

Thus India provided all the three ingredients of Britain's Industrial Revolution: capital, raw materials and market.

It is not a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution began less than 20 years after the British conquest of east India. Nor is it a coincidence that the engine of Britain's Industrial Revolution was its textile industry. Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the world's number one textile manufacturer and exporter. When you have conquered a country, what better industry to enter and dominate, than the industry dominated by the country you now rule – and whose economy you now control?

Subsequently, of course, Britain conquered the whole of India, thus giving it more capital, more raw materials and a larger market – which helped to accelerate its Industrial Revolution. Needless to say, India's economy was devastated in this process.

Thus the Industrial Revolution was built on the grave of the Indian economy. The Industrial Revolution was made in Britain, but it was funded by India (against her will).

The Industrial Revolution gave birth to the Industrial Age, or theModern Age. Thus, though the Modern Age was inaugurated in Britain, the real driving force behind it was India.

That was the role of India in the Industrial Revolution (and consequently, the birth of the Modern Age).

Thus Britain did not "make India modern". The truth is the other way around. It was India that helped Britain to become modern.
Indian Take: India's Role in the Industrial Revolution
Therefore, to complain about poor nations sapping Britain is a very ironical comment.

The reason that a large majority of the illegal immigrants enter Europe and find their way to UK is because most of them come from English speaking countries, even if they are not fully conversant in English. It is their comfort zone that they can at least understand the language in UK and reply in their pidgin style and get along with their lives, even if they have entered illegally.
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
British people (the voters and feeders of the politicians) literally do care more about how many newly created jobs are being taken by EU/Non-EU immigrants/emigrants. Eastern Europeans. Many people are very concerned about overcrowded hospitals, schools and shortage of housing.

thats the topic i just discussed in the thread as below too. i think my post as below may have a place here too :thumb:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/europe-russia/64033-eurozone-crisis-online-4.html#post963192

1. The recent fall in the number of migrants arriving from Eastern European members of the EU has led to suggestions that the immigration problem is on the way to solution. :truestory:



MigrationWatchUK | 4.8 : Future Migration Flows from Eastern Europe

we find a silver line on the fall of EU's economies, mainly on the side of solution of their immigration problem. the reserve trend of immigrants, and the consistency it has, would simply help UK/Britain regain their original identity. but the main problem of UK is the growing number of Muslims, which itself has a consistent rise in their population....

Population of Muslims rising at the speed of more than 10 times to rest of the people in UK. hence, with decline of the East European population, I don't see UK helping itself on the side of immigration problem.

only fall of Mexican born people in US, is something going to benefit US in future, true :thumb:
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
This one one of the earlier plans for EU with Ukraine and parts of Russia as a part of it. Great Britain was also then considered being not part.
What do colours brown, blue, dark blue, green represent?? Also if its about EU, then what are North africa, west asia doing in the map?? Is iraq, syria, libya etc also going to join EU??
 

santosh10

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
1,666
Likes
177
Breakup of UK from EU for sure would cause anger as it would be 3rd largest economy of europe exiting the Union.

This is an important point,business would no longer remain so friendly as it is now. And as result would lead job loss as well as some business would like to move into a economy with 600mill people than with just 60million. As the article & @Ray post says...


In the short term it would weaken UK's economy,though thing could be brought in line in the later years.

hmmmm, look, UK needs EU as much as EU needs UK. its nothing but as important partner as France, Germany of EU28, even if we now put Italy, Spain on the lower side, the 4th and 5th largest economies of EU28.

i guess, breakup of UK with EU28 will affect bit more than the scenario when France leave EU28, and it would be bit less important as compare to the case if Germany threaten to leave EU28 :ranger:

Eurozone in full mess at present, and things will get tougher if UK leaves EU28. and its not the case that UK itself will be on any better side this way, definitely no .....

=> Gexit Is Better Than Grexit

Today it is clear as well that the euro in its present form cannot survive without bankrupting all the economies of Europe. Yet the Europe Union's political class still persists in its vain and costly attempts to save the common European currency -- simply because giving up on the euro would mean admitting they were wrong from the start. What's more, the EU ideology that Europe is to develop into a genuine federal state does not allow its leaders to admit that Europe is a cluster of distinctly different nation states with different interests, cultures, languages and traditions.

The people of Europe were cheated from the start. They outspokenly did not want their nations to be submerged into a "United States of Europe."

Sticking to the rules, however, was out of the question: neither France nor Germany was prepared to drop Greece. France sees itself as the leader and patron of the bloc of southern EU countries; Germany fears that if it insisted on pushing a country out of the eurozone it would be accused of immoral selfishness and all the goodwill it had acquired since the Second World War would be lost. As the two major EU countries were prepared to bail out Greece, the smaller member states all went along, assuming that only one bailout (and just for Greece) would be needed. :ranger:

One day soon, however, Europe will have to face reality. Either the EU is turned into a fiscal and political union, a genuine superstate where national debts are shared. Or the euro and possibly the EU disintegrate. :ranger:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138
What do colours brown, blue, dark blue, green represent?? Also if its about EU, then what are North africa, west asia doing in the map?? Is iraq, syria, libya etc also going to join EU??
Those with same color, would have close ties even if they were not in the EU. Like Italy and Spain with north african countries. This version of the EU never got behind planning stage.
 

nrupatunga

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
2,310
Likes
960
Those with same color, would have close ties even if they were not in the EU. Like Italy and Spain with north african countries. This version of the EU never got behind planning stage.


Sorry Sir, this just does not look like a recent map of european countries at all. Also why is crimea along with germany/poland when neither russia nor ukraine is shown in same colour?? Also why is turkey having 2 colours i.e. green and blue?? Also parts of russia and baltic states along with belarus is shown one country while ukraine is enlarged. Why even finland is encroaching russian lands like lake ladoga? Frankly is this even a 20th century map of europe??
 

jouni

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
3,900
Likes
1,138


Sorry Sir, this just does not look like a recent map of european countries at all. Also why is crimea along with germany/poland when neither russia nor ukraine is shown in same colour?? Also why is turkey having 2 colours i.e. green and blue?? Also parts of russia and baltic states along with belarus is shown one country while ukraine is enlarged. Why even finland is encroaching russian lands like lake ladoga? Frankly is this even a 20th century map of europe??
This is from 1942 When leaders of Europe were planning what future "Europen Union" would look like ;).
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top