Parliament will debate the following on Monday, 24 October: "This House calls upon the government to introduce a bill in the next session of Parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the united Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union, leave the European Union, or renegotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and cooperation." No one expects anything like a majority in favour of a referendum and all three party leaders have ordered their MPs to vote against it - a three line whip. David Cameron, Conservative leader, has warned his MPs that they will not be promoted if they support a referendum. Still, it's a start.
I thought it was a joke to suggest that the UK exit the EU. But if that ever comes to pass, the UK should be split first, to separate and independent states, such as England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Cornwall, so that the people can change their citizenships to switch away from those ultra-nationalists that force the land out of the EU. The UK has already a ton of problems, why kill it totally by isolating it? Or ... maybe I am getting it ... it needs to be put out of its misery.
I think, that with this news, working British people should now all move to Holland, before Westminster finds it in itself to vote the UK out of the EU. When that happens, the British people will be stuck, nowhere to go, nowhere to work. Then they will get a taste of how impossible it is to get a visa to Europe, you can check it with any poster from Turkey. Also, after the separation: bye-bye English, hello Urdu/Hindi. WHAHAHA I hope any such separation will NEVER happen.
It's no joke, but your comments seem to be! And the British should follow your advice because ...? Those of us who'd vote to leave are not ultra nationalists, but we do want what's best for the people who live here, and we're smart enough to know the EU isn't it. Why assume withdrawal would isolate the UK? I think the EU needs to be put out of its misery, but that's up to the citizens in the rest of Europe, if we leave. Westminster won't vote to leave the EU. It's full of self-serving, money grabbing (*)(*)(*)(*)s. Like I said this is the start. And why would you assume that? But we're not Turkey and Turkey is but one nation. This is just nonsense. I'm curious. Why does it matter to you?
After Britain's left, Ireland will be the more important country in the region, a "puppet" with Franco-German masters. This is not as cookie as it sounds, from an EU perspective, strategically, Ireland is already more important. Britain will be as important as Holland but without the international contacts. I agree with you, the EU needs a death knell too, but the UK is a lot smaller of a pig than the EU, so the UK would die faster. So you were so eager to Americanize your nation? A start for national suicide. Great. Who are Britain's primary business partners? If you think China, then isolating Britain will allow you to devalue your currency and lifestyle to poverty and compete, but there will be nothing in it for the actual people. Everybody can become Turkey real fast in this economy. It is those immigrant populations that grow during economic hardships, not the domestic/British. This is true for every country throughout the entire human history. I know people in many countries, personally, Britain is one of them, I am a globalized guy.
I don't feel the need to be the "most important country" in the region. I'm more interested in living in a successful democracy. And isn't it the size and strength of a country's economy that determines its importance anyway? Isn't that why the EU is dominated by Germany? But if Ireland becomes the most important country in the region, I'd send my best wishes to my Irish friends. Why do you say we wouldn't we have the international contacts? So, how is the EU to meet its death knell? Should we all sit around and wait whilst politicians drain us of our will and resources? You can if you want to. And obviously the UK would be a lot smaller than the EU, but why should this be seen as a problem for us? Not at all. Why are EU supporters so inclined to think the choice is between the US and the EU? It's a curious attitude and I can only think it is europhile propaganda in lieu of a real argument. Is Norway Americanised? Is Iceland? How about the US's next door neighbour, Canada? Is that Americanised? Britain's trade policy is dictated by the EU and trade would continue as before anyway, the trade balance being what it is, the EU is hardly in a position to make life difficult for us. (Britain's single biggest major trading partner is the US.) Countries all over the world do trade with Europe, and as an independent country we would be free to negotiate trade links the world over (without reference to the EU) with fast growing economies like India for instance. Britain is able to devalue its currency because we are not in the eurozone. This option wasn't available to Greece, Ireland or Portugal. Of course, and it's another reason to leave the EU. I'm not sure Turkey is the best country to use in your argument though. Its economy is in a better state that most European ones, including the UK's. And it's exacerbated by EU policies, immigration, and equality. Yet more reasons to leave the EU. Consider yourself patted on the back but please explain why a "globalised guy" would care whether we are members or not. I see that you fly the Monaco flag, but where do you come from and live? Incidentally, did you learn about the EU whilst at school? (I know many Europeans do. Serious question.)
OK, I am back. Well, my current girl is British, and I always take personal interest in the well being of the countries that come from my girlfriends. Next year, I plan to spend a LOT of time in Britain. I am (a white) American (male), but because of the financial developments my homeland has been going through lately, I have moved to Monaco. So now I am Monesque. Hence the Monaco flag. Imagine yourself in my shoes, and then add that your homeland is small (the UK is a lot smaller than the US) plus that it destroyed your ability to move around (because it withdrew from trade/labor market blocks). Then you would not be able to do what I do and you would get trapped. A certain doom for your future if you allow it. I would like to postulate, that increasing British initiatives and influances in the Franco-German turf is the answer you are looking for when you subscribe to Euro-scepticism. Unilateral withdrawal and isolation would be disadvantageous. For example, look at the Suez canal incident (1950's(?)), which drove Britain away from the US circle of influence and straight into the EU, to begin with.
So you think we should stay in the EU because as a democracy we might eliminate minorities? That's not something we in Britain have ever done before, so I see no reason to assume that we'd do it in the future, and in no way do we want to eliminate anybody, apart from maybe pro-EU politicians. And democracy needs a lot of things to work properly, but even at its worst it beats EU bureaucracy every single time. I always thought the US established its Electoral College for rather quaint reasons that really don't stand up too well in the modern era, but that's for the US to decide. And you didn't answer my question ... why wouldn't we have international contacts? Of course all sorts of goal posts shift throughout history, but I can't see how this supports your view that the UK should be an EU member. You think it's lucky that migration is increasing? Lucky? Sorry I can't see your logic at all. Mass immigration in ancient times is not on the same scale as post war immigration. It doesn't even come close. If continental Europeans want mass immigration, good for them, but the majority in England don't want to "participate in it". Why on earth should we? And please answer the question ... why would being smaller than the EU be a problem? We'd be separated from the EU and therefore isolated from it in a good way, though we'd still trade and co-operate with it as other non-EU states do, and there's the rest of the world to trade and co-operate with as well. Iceland is effectively a Russian colony? On what basis? And what about Norway and Canada? Are they Russian colonies (or Americanised) too? And I don't want my country to enable me to move. When I move, it will be to the mutual benefit of both my preferred country and me, or I won't move at all. We have a very unstable future as EU members. As Barack Obama has said, the eurozone debt crisis is scaring the world and thats just the economic problems, though I think he has some nerve criticising Europe over its financial dealings, but European leaders are bickering whilst Europe is sliding deeper into its crisis. Your current girlfriend? Youre such a romantic. Save this for her because Im not buying it, and whilst its good of you to take an interest, you need to get over yourself. You might look at the dissenting arguments for EU membership whilst youre doing it. Maybe that way you wont come back with worn out old pro-EU propaganda. I couldnt possibly imagine myself in your shoes. You live in Monaco FCOL! Its a far cry from anywhere Ive ever lived, though I think the risk of being trapped is nil. Again why does the fact that the UK is small disadvantage us? Other small states manage to govern themselves successfully, don't they, and despite being small, and despite being EU members, we're still one of the world's biggest trading nations. And withdrawal from the EU would not withdraw us from trade blocks. Sorry, but it's tired old pro-EU propaganda to claim anything else. Experience shows that British initiatives fall flat. Europe doesn't want British them and even when it does, they're warped when the Commission get its hands on them and in return we get stuff like the Tobin Tax. Unilateral withdrawal will not isolate us, but the US did humiliate the British and France over the Suez Crisis, so you're sort of right in that. British politicians lost their confidence and sold us out to European integrationists, only they had to deceive the population to do it.
face it, Banks and the markets schemed and won no oversight for slimy maneuvers that bankrupted millions of people and got taxpayers worldwide to be on the hook for these losses due to the behaviors of these so called leaders. many govts worldwide invested in under insured AAA rated yet worthless paper and lost the savings and pensions of millions. Millions lost their retirements, homes, investments, jobs. Millions saw divorce and many health related illnesses due to these losses. The real kicker is the world bank wants other cosigners from more liquid countries( the taxpayers of those more liquid countries) to be on the hook for the Spains and Greece and maybe Italy). Banks are dictating draconian cuts in services, wages, retirements as the terms. The financial industry creates the mess, sells the junk and in its ponzy schemes of trading worthless paper inundates the economies of the world in a large recession, get paid back on the peoples backs and dictate terms about loaning countries more funds. Something is very wrong here. what happened to Iceland when they told the World bank to go shove it in January and would not accept the terms of austere measures? Not a word. Banks need the citizens to cosign and be obligated to pay them monies. banks should have to take Huge losses for their behavior in creating this mess yet no one has gone to jail. that is because the political leaders are now the sheep for banks and Wall street. I hope the people of Britain will NOT be cosigners.
I have faced it. The banks shouldn't have lent money to people who were bad credit risks, those people (many representing countries) shouldn't have borrowed money they couldn't afford to pay back and politicians shouldn't have bailed out the banks with other people's money. It's the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism. Now the EU wants to put it all right by taking even more powers from nation states and upping taxes, whilst the bankers laugh their socks off. A plague on all their houses. And the British are stuck with politicians who lie and masses of people have been falling for these lies for decades. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veRsC44HPXE"]David Cameron wants a referendum ... [/ame] Nick Clegg (his Lib Dem Coalition partner) also wanted an in/out referendum before the election. Now the grubby little pair have changed their tune. They've got their hands on power, now they don't need to worry what the people think until the next election, when they'll try conning the electorate again with the never never land teaser of re-negotiation. It works less each time because we're getting tired of jam tomorrow promises.
No, it was the European nation states with their democracies that destroyed Europe, started 2 world wars, and now even you, the British, who were smarter than that, want to join the crazy train? I realize and applaud that Britain didn't do this in the past (but they did, only less). It would be prudent not to start it now. Currently, it is only the EU bureaucracy that stands up against the tyrannies of national democracies. No, the Electoral College is a quintessential necessity to function as a union of states, it is the only thing that ensures that even the smallest and least populous state/district has the same voting power as the biggest. This is something that all European democracies are eager to minimize and omit, which shows how hippocrytical is when a European talks about democracy. Britain will have limited international contacts, because putting all its cards in the US basket will open it for US exploitation, China doesn't care except to undercut everyone's local economy, and the EU's attitude will be like the EU's attitude was with the new Eastern member states, that almost bankrupted their economies before they joined. The UK will be trampled down like Austria-Hungary, the largest and most cultured historic European country. You will have locked Britain out of the secret negotiation chambers. Sorry, I must respectfully totally and absolutely disagree here. Britain got most of its population not from the original Celts but from the Saxons, Yutts/Danish, Normans, etc. ... migrations of national sizes and in overwhelming %'s, far higher volume than immigrant visa applications. As for the question about being smaller, well I don't necessarily mean territorially smaller. We Americans will treat you as a US member state but with less than equal rights. With this, there goes your well established and sophisticated humane labor legislation. Then, if you go to China, that cares not except to undercut you, so there go your working conditions. The EU will trick you like they tricked the Eastern members and still tricking the Eastern non-members (e.g. the Ukraine and Serbia, can ask them about their opinion of the EU). In short, there is no world trade cooperation, only money speaks, and the GBP isn't worth as much without the Empire of Britain. If Switzerland is your role model, no, you didn't build those kinds of connections. I agree that it is artifical that there will be no news about Iceland. But when Iceland refused to railroad its people into making a national debth out of its banks' participation in the 2009 credit cycle fiasco, Iceland also took substantial Russian loans to balance against the shunning from the international finance and trade communities/bullies. So, the choices are: do you doom yourself by indenturing your people with (fraudulent) international debth, or do you doom yourself by colonializing yourself against it. As for moving, people who don't have to are lucky, people who do are in the position of protecting themselves, but most people simply can't even move though they would need to. They are already trapped (financially and politically.) How is this relevant as to the benefit of a country? Europe needs a jolt, to move forward. This will either be a new nationalistic war between its member states, or the deletion of national characters, like what happened with the states of the US in the 19th century. The UK, as a separate country from the EU, could play a management and administrative role to set up and run the new Europe after that jolt, but nobody can trust the UK like they trust the US because the UK takes sides. Looks like the UK simply doesn't have the (academic?) intelligence to become a power in its region, and so its separation will lead to its isolation. I am a political independent, even in basic political theory, so it is simply coincidental when I seem to align with some propaganda. In my current belief, the UK will be swallowed up whether it stay or leaves the EU, but if it leaves the EU, then the UK will loose its "rights" too. No, the experience of the EU's neighbors show that it is pretty impossible for them to achieve any trade balance after their imports from the EU, look at any of the new Eastern member states for the years leading up to their accession. Their domestic industries went virtually bankrupt because they could find no hosting trade groups. The EU enlargement happened only after those then prospective members started to think of rebuilding their Soviet originated trade block. I agree, that the British may face a historic uphill struggle with anything over the European continent. But this is because Europeans see the British as dishonest for many reasons, such as for example their support for the French divisive politics or the British "dirty trick campaign" in post-ww2 banking in Germany.
This is the old EU has kept the peace argument. I disagree. NATO kept the peace and the EU is supplanting it. What happens when the EU looks outside its borders? Given its history, is it not likely to start even bigger wars? It was national leaders who started wars, not the citizens who had to fight them. And the EU is not yet 60 years old and its support amongst the descendants of those British citizens is deservedly in decline. EU bureaucracy is not what British soldiers died for. The EU is most definitely hypocritical when it talks about democracy. British "democracy" isn't eager to follow the shabby EU model because the British people were never asked. The EU has very deliberately set its institutions up in such a way as to make the European Parliament the weakest of them all and EU citizens cannot change policies with their vote. I just don't see the upside of that. Nor can I see how anyone who wants to return to an independent democracy is hypocritical. You make unsubstantiated leaps in your thinking. Of for heaven's sake! WHO said anything about putting all cards in the US basket? Or China's or anyone else's? How about the Commonwealth? It contains some of the fastest growing economies in the world today. Is it ok with you if we reach out to them? We'd have to beg them to forgive us for the shameful way we treated them when we joined the so called common market though. And do you imagine the EU is in any position to make life difficult for an independent UK? If so, why, in view of the massive deficit we run? Is it in their interests to stop selling us cars and wine, etc? Who'd lose in a trade war do you think? I'll give you a clue it is not a small island off Europe's west coast! Trade with Europe would continue as before. Interesting idea, but again why would you think this? Of course, but when that sort of immigration took place, the UK (and England especially, and it is England where most immigrants wish to settle) wasn't anything like as densely populated as it is now. Now just we don't have the infrastructure or the land to build more houses to cope with more people. Nevertheless, the UK is not a US member state and nor do I ever want it to be one. Our "sophisticated humane labour legislation" is sending our manufacturing base to countries like China. In no way do I want Chinese style labour laws, but nor do I want onerous and bureaucratic EU ones either. Sensible labour laws will suffice. Iceland took its loans from Russia because the US and the UK would not help. It took the best deal it could find and if it's a colony I can't see it's in a worse position than Greece or Iceland. Iceland had particular cause to be upset with the UK after the UK government threatened to use anti-terrorism legislation to freeze Icelandic banking assets in the UK. And neither. We won't doom ourselves at all. No one is trapped and wouldn't be so in an independent UK if they have the right skills and are of the right age to emigrate. Having ample funds helps too, but still people are only constrained by their own personal circumstances or shortcomings. You presumably as an American had no right to live in Monaco; you satisfied the authorities there in some way. European states need to stop spending so much, and some need to stop avoiding their taxes, but they seem reluctant to do that. It's a bit melodramatic to suggest there'll be a new war between its member states. Don't you think our politicians learned anything from two catastrophic world wars? I have no more interest in the UK playing any kind of management role in Europe should the EU break up than I have in being a member, nor do I want the UK to become a "power" in the region. Germany's the dominant power now. How do you feel about that? I can't see that you're politically independent if you support the EU. The "rights" the UK has in the EU come at far too high a price and we won't be swallowed up. We're not Eastern Europe and they didn't have much to start with. Europeans just don't want to do things in a way that would suit the British and and that's their choice, but that being so, it's high time we left. Suspicion ran deep in post war Europe on all sides, with accusations of dirty tricks common, so if they're still holding the British to account for that (and it's not a reason that's been put to me before) we're unlikely to come together now.
You'll enjoy this video of [ame=www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfiSpJxY]Nigel Farage speaking to some of the protestors outside parliament yesterday [/ame] Naturally, the protest was barely reported in the British media. The motion was defeated as expected 483 votes to 111, but the rebellion by nearly half David Cameron's back bench MPs, will worry him. Many of the protestors (including me) went into the House to lobby our MPs. Mine (Charles Hendry) voted with government. His record is not good for someone who tells his constituents that he doesn't want to be in a "political union". Nor are his party's or his fellow MPs records good for people who claims to want to "take powers back" from the EU. It's pity more people don't take an interest in what MPs vote for. Maybe watching reality TV shows is better. Charles Hendry 24 May 2011 - Voted for Hostile amendment to Mark Reckless's motion to halt EU bailouts 18 Mar 2011 - Voted against United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill (Second Reading) 11 Jan 2011 - Voted against The sovereignty of the UK Parliament in relation to EU law 10 Nov 2010 - Voted for European Economic Governance 13 Oct 2010 - Voted against Draft EU Budget 2011 - amendment calling for a reduction in Britain's contribution 14 Jul 2010 - Voted for European External Action Service 11 Mar 2008 - Voted against Lisbon Treaty - Third Reading 05 Mar 2008 - Voted for Lisbon Treaty - referendum amendment (Conservative) 05 Mar 2008 - Voted for Lisbon Treaty - referendum amendment (Labour rebels) 05 Mar 2008 - Voted against Lisbon Treaty - Clause 8 (commencement without referendum) Other MPs records on EU issues can be checked here. Our single Green MP voted in favour of a referendum.
I do think you'd have to apologize to them for a bit more than that. Their enslavement, the apartheid you inflicted upon them, and the resources you plundered would, probably, be a good start.
I think that's between the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth, but we do already enjoy very good relations with its members, thanks all the same.
Just a bit of friendly advice. I have some very good Indian friends, and none of them are particularly fond of your country -- I doubt very much that they'd be interested in any sort of greater integration with it...
If you want to start a Brit bashing thread, feel free and I might comment. Eurosceptics don't want integration, this is about free trade.
I am sure that British soldiers didn't die to create their own democracy by taking it away from others. Yes, I agree, but the EU is the least hypocritical amongst all the hypocrits. Members of the Commonwealth would want their money back, so yes, they will respond if Britain reaches out to them, but Britain MUST do a lot more then. Who would loose in a trade war? The little island off Western Europe (amongst many other clowns) who can't maket their primary export product which is financial loan packages, because they have fully burnt through their total capital at the end of this current credit cycle in 2009. It is an illusion that people (including a majority) make a country. The 2 world wars proved that cultures and nations are simply little pesky issues and they can always be tailored using guns, deportations, and agressive assimilations. What matters is who has the money, and which ethnicity those financial circles (banks?) choose to use or create, to "build a nation" that enforces a legislative environment to ensure an exclusive profitable territorial turf for those financial circles. Looking at the map of Europe, so far it is only Britain, France, and Spain that dodged this bullet, yet. Population density is a relative term, in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. it is even higher. Population density seems to help a lot in the 21st century. Still, you are not yet beat up as bad as US workers, for example you still get vacations, and it is your choice to take them or not. But if you leave the EU, then yes, absolutely, you will enslave yourselves. Yes, you are trapped. Skills are not enough. Neither is age. You must have a specific skill that the local market of that country is temporarily lacking, and then hope that it would still be lacking by the time your immigration is approved, All this in an environment where all needs for skills love evaporating into the Internet. Money is a better option to use for migration, but not everyone has enough for that. How do I like Germany's dominant power? I think I love it a lot. Germany got the worst deal in recent European history, and it is high time that things balance out already. You can fool only so many generations with false propaganda. Right, European politicians have learnt absolutely nothing from the 2 world wars and never will, just like Wall Street learnt absolutely nothing from 1929 and never will, see 2009. My reasons to support the EU are different from the publicly packaged ones that people buy. Economic racism may work well in election campaigns, but you are only fooling the country and yourself if you believe in it.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying we're taking democracy away from others? If so, how? I seriously doubt British soldiers died to make Germany the dominant power in Europe. The EU is every bit as hypocritical as its pro-EU counterparts. The Commonwealth members wouldn't be getting "their money back". They'd be offered a mutually free trade deals which they could take up or not as it suits them. But thanks for your opinion, but Britain's relationship with the rest of the Commonwealth is for the Commonwealth to define. Your isolationism argument is scaremongering. Which "secret negotiation chambers" are you thinking of? You make it sound very cloak and dagger. Who said people make a country? Lots of things make a country. I agree, what matters is who has the money, but what also matters, to me if not to you, is who makes the laws and whether they are democratically accountable. And loads of independent countries aren't trampled on, so I'm ready to take my chances. Not much of a comparison. Those countries are independent and do not have open door mass immigration policies. Being densely populated has not helped the UK which does. You appear to be still fixated on our only choice being the US and the EU, but as you've brought it up, we are better off than US workers, but our employers are worse off than US employers, which means that employers are even more likely to leave for other countries where the bureaucracy and labour laws are less stringent. Why else do you think even the usually soft British governments resisted the Social Chapter for as long as they did? This being better off is not restricted to Europeans anyway and the British are not feeling better off as taxes and the cost of living is so high here. If I'm "enslaved", it's to the EU. And you still haven't explained why we'll be enslaved if we leave the EU. Why haven't other independent countries been "enslaved"? Rubbish. We're not at all trapped. Of course we need the skills to suit the country we want to move to! Why should we be "free" to move to a country that does not need us, especially if we'd displace a local worker? Is that what you regard as being trapped? Oh fan-tastic! So we fight Germans in two world wars, in which millions of combatants and civilians, some in the most inhumane way possible, lost their lives, and you think it's a good that Germany dominates Europe today because it got a "bad deal"! I don't think today's Germans should in any way have to pay for the sins of their forefathers, but nor am I happy with Germany dominating politics in the EU now. It's yet one more reason to leave the EU. Aren't you being rather contradictory? Earlier you said that EU bureaucracy stood up to tyranny. EU bureaucracy only exists with the approval of European politicians, so on what basis do you say they've learned nothing? And who (apart from pro-EU politicians and bureaucrats) is fooling anyone with false propaganda? Do tell! Or are your reasons a secret? I'd love to know how an EU supporter can reason to themselves that they are politically independent. Is this relevant? Who's being economically racist? And how are they being so?
You like a deceitful little pro-EU quisling. Here's his website. There's nothing about why he's so fond of the EU that he voted to give it yet more of his constituents' money and yet more power which should belong to parliament -- contrary to his stated view that he doesn't want to be in a European political union. Maybe he's just looking after his own interests and protecting his ministerial career. I can't think of any other reason.
Britain took democracy away from others and it was the British soldiers that made it possible (along with other soldiers), not something to be proud of. The whole phenomenon of the decades long "iron curtain" in 20th century Europe was (indirectly) a British (and French) result, and so was the existance of the Soviet Union. It amazes me that the British education doesn't have this minimal level of honesty about Britain. I guess the British (and the French) will never admit that by elevating criminals to statemenship and militarily creating a country for them is taking democracy away from people. But we Americans are not better either, look what we did in Cuba with Basista. Maybe I can illustrate it with this: where was France in th British-American cooperation for the cold war? It is not France that defined the progress of world events then. It is not good for Britain to be a France in such a fashion. What do you mean by "democratically"? You will not be enslaved to a foreign power. You will be enslaved to your own domestic employers who will operate in an essentially lawless Britain, taking full advantage of it, such as it is in he USA. Only the EU and China have effective labor laws and enforcement, in the world. It is only those with the money that have the privilege to writ/enforce laws. The EU worker has more money than the British worker. Why is it important what your new host country wants? Workers were always displaced in one way or another throughout the entire history, in every country. Today's situtation is abnormal, in that since ww1, every country transformed its borders into an obsticle course for people who are not rich enough. I can see this has even crept into individuals' minds and generated this ridiculous "what country needs" emotion. History is history, when there is a historic necessity for something to happen, it will happn, no matter what alliance you enter or break up, even deporting/massacring German+Italian populations in 1945 can't stop history. The entente soldiers died for nothing, and there is absolutely nothing that can change that. The EU bureaucracy contains elements that national bureaucracies can't, by design. I don't believe in the ideas of "nation" and "democracy", I think these were invented by "criminals" (of the French revolution?) for criminal purposes, but very well sold to individuals by appealing to the worst bloodthirsty nature of the human existance. The EU simply accidentally happens to stand against the idea of "nations", to a limited degree, and maybe against "democracy" too although I am not sure there. It sounds economically racist when a typical British company says that during their East European expansion they observed that the East Europeans "had little" (money? or knowledge?). What a British person will never know is how many VERY successful local products those East European workers agreed to cut in a good faith expectation for a profitable British cooperation. British companies and policy makers lied to them and lie to the British people too. But it is only the British people, not the East Europeans, that still believe in these lies. As a result, it is a well deserved punisment for the British people that Polish and Romanian immigrants doodoo across the British streets, since the racist British people have refused to keep their end of the bargain when the East Europeans cut their productions for them. Their production cuts are surely a good EU benefit for Britain, in case Britain wants to compete with them from outside the EU.
OK, as long as we agree that other countries are no better than Britain. Strong countries have always taken advantage of weaker ones throughout history though. Incidentally, I'm not proud or ashamed of the British Empire; I have no reason to be as I didn't play any part in it. No Well I'd be happy to be a France in such circumstances, given that the alternative offered is being governed by the EU. In democratically accountable - that the people have the means to oust democratically elected politicians. In democratically - where decisions are taken by representatives elected by the people. Well I'm already enslaved to a foreign power and it's destroying British jobs with its overreaching bureaucracy, labour laws and single market legislation. And you're scaremongering again and any problems which ensued after we gained our independence would be ours to deal with and I have every confidence that we can manage our own labour and social legislation satisfactorily, and your concern is misguided so please don't fret on our behalf. I've said why it's important from my POV - we are a densely populated country, with overstretched public services. We have high unemployment, especially amongst the young, and a huge welfare bill. We're also building the smallest houses in Europe as building land is so expensive. Unskilled mass immigration is not helping us. Why it's important (or not) for other countries is for them to decide. You're of the 'Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry' persuasion? (Baldrick, Blackadder) The EU bureaucracy also contains massive corruption, vanity and the worst elements of capitalism and socialism. I'll take national democracy every single time. And who is fooling anyone with false propaganda? You didn't say. Fine, you believe that. The EU only stands in the way of nations in order to create a much bigger one of its own, just not a democratic one, and it does without a doubt stand in the way of democracy. If one accepts the need for the EU, it's understandable that it isn't democratic as it would be impossible to govern half a billion people, covering such diverse cultures and economies, democratically, but you do support the EU, therefore you cannot be politically independent. Now you're being ridiculous. You'd hold an entire country's population responsible for the perceived sins of a company(s)? That sounds a lot like racism. There are racists everywhere, but the British people are no more racist than anyone else and they don't "deserve" to pay for anything but what they had a hand in. Are you talking about a specific British company(s) here? Your argument could use a little substance! A country should decide its own trade policies to its best advantage, in accordance with WTO rules. I'm also happy that the UK contributes overseas aid, but I don't want that aid to go through the EU.
