If Britain do leave the EU, would you move to the UK?

FreudianSlippers

Markcheese wrote: »

If Scotland secedes from great Britain will they still be part of the UK , if the welsh followed suit , would England still call itself great Britain .

The only way that is possible is for Scotland and Wales to somehow detach themselves physically from the island and be considered geologically new islands. I'm pretty sure if they were crazy and powerful enough to do that, England and UK membership wouldn't be an issue.

The Corinthian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The only way that is possible is for Scotland and Wales to somehow detach themselves physically from the island and be considered geologically new islands.

What is this delusion that two countries cannot share the same Island?

The UK, and even the term Britain, were largely a creation of the Act of Union, in 1707, between England and Scotland, that were until then separate nations. Wales was essentially an English possession, rather than a separate nation, at that stage - and so does not effect it.

So were Scotland to secede from the union, there legally would be no UK or Britain - although the English/Welsh may choose to try to retain the term nonetheless because prior to union Wales was simply considered part of (greater) England, and I can't see that sitting well with the Welsh.

What's more interesting is what would happen to the Union Jack, as this was formed as a combination of the cross of St George (England) and St Andrew (Scotland) and later incorporated St Patrick's cross, following the second Act of Union with Ireland in 1801 - and remains today on the basis of Northern Ireland and the cost of changing all of the flags.

MrD012

oscarBravo wrote: »

I wondered what that guy was doing in the polling station with me, holding a gun to my head. It all becomes clear now.

no your missing the point , it has been well documented now that the government has used the publics own money to convince them to vote yes in referendums , this is undemocratic and needs to stop .

on the point of the gun to your head , In a way yes there was a gun to your head because if your constantly being told time and time again that the ATM machines will stop working , mortgages will sky rocket , we'll all be Jobless ... eventually many start to believe it and it creeps into your psyche and when you go into that polling station yes it becomes like a gun to many who are vulnerable to such mistruths.

oscarBravo

MrD012 wrote: »

on the point of the gun to your head , In a way yes there was a gun to your head because if your constantly being told time and time again that the ATM machines will stop working , mortgages will sky rocket , we'll all be Jobless ... eventually many start to believe it and it creeps into your psyche and when you go into that polling station yes it becomes like a gun to many who are vulnerable to such mistruths.

...so we shouldn't hold referendums?

FreudianSlippers

The Corinthian wrote: »

What is this delusion that two countries cannot share the same Island?

The UK, and even the term Britain, were largely a creation of the Act of Union, in 1707, between England and Scotland, that were until then separate nations. Wales was essentially an English possession, rather than a separate nation, at that stage - and so does not effect it.

So were Scotland to secede from the union, there legally would be no UK or Britain - although the English/Welsh may choose to try to retain the term nonetheless because prior to union Wales was simply considered part of (greater) England, and I can't see that sitting well with the Welsh.

What's more interesting is what would happen to the Union Jack, as this was formed as a combination of the cross of St George (England) and St Andrew (Scotland) and later incorporated St Patrick's cross, following the second Act of Union with Ireland in 1801 - and remains today on the basis of Northern Ireland and the cost of changing all of the flags.

You can't leave your geographical island. I said nothing about 2 countries on the same island. Great Britain is the name of an island and pretty much has only been that for 2000+ years. I have little to no interest in discussing the Kingdom of Great Britain (lasting 1707 to 1801) and I doubt the earlier poster did either.

If Scotland left the UK they would still very much be a part of Great Britain, just as Northern Ireland is still very much a part of Ireland (the island).

The UK couldn't be called that anymore, just as they had to change from UK of Great Britain and Ireland to UK of GB and Northern Ireland.

Bottom line is that Scotland cannot leave Great Britain because it is the name of the island they live on. Anyone who tells you otherwise is talking bollox.

djpbarry

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The UK couldn't be called that anymore, just as they had to change from UK of Great Britain and Ireland to UK of GB and Northern Ireland.

It would likely just become the UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Corinthian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Bottom line is that Scotland cannot leave Great Britain because it is the name of the island they live on. Anyone who tells you otherwise is talking bollox.

Fair enough, I see we're all being pedantic, so I'll join in

'Great' Britain is actually a modern invention and only really entered common usage from the mid 1500's onwards. The more correct and older name for the largest island in the British isles archipelago is actually Albion.

Of course, you are correct that Scotland cannot 'leave' Great Britain because of geographical reasons, any more than it can leave Albion or Ireland can leave the 'British Isles', simply because that's what our archipelago of islands is called. However, were the Scottish to leave the union, then what remains of the UK could no longer call itself Great Britain as they no longer represent the whole island - just as before it was simply the Kingdom of England (even though it included Wales).

Of course, reverting to just 'England', while Wales and Northern Ireland are still continuant members, is not terribly politically viable. One option, that was actually frequently used in the 1700's was the terms North and South Britain - this would see it renamed as 'South (Great) Britain and Northern Ireland'.

Yugoslavia had similar problems twoards the end of its existence, in that it was essentially forced, in 2003, to be renamed as the 'State Union of Serbia and Montenegro'; which might give us 'United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland'. Bit of a mouthful.

Or a completely new name may be devised - after all, 'Great' Britain was an invention in the first place. I'd imagine that Saatchi & Saatchi's would drool over the prospect of getting that branding contract.

The last possibility is where they attempt to retain the term, and perhaps even the symbols, of Great Britain. As with Macedonia and Greece, this would likely cause serious diplomatic friction, with her northern neighbour.

However it's ultimately handled, between names and the cost of changing the flag (likely to happen multiple times as the Welsh may demand inclusion in the flag or Northern Ireland could well succeed after Scotland), it'll probably be a serious headache.

Doubt that it'll happen in the end though, TBH.

LindowMan

It would still be the UK but without Scotland.

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The associated members who are not full members contribute to the pot - that's the deal

Well, we best make sure we aren't associate member, then. Let's just leave the EU fully.

they will be like China.

What do you mean? Do you mean we will have annual economic growth of 9.5%? Suits me fine.

The vast majority of jobs in the city of London will probably move.

That's just scaremongering of the sort we heard over ten years ago when Europhiles were telling us that Britain will suffer as a result of not joining the euro and that Paris and Frankfurt will overtake London as financial and economic powerhouses. What a load of rubbish that turned out to be.

and immigrants flee

I'm sure the vast majority of the British people would be happy if that happened.

Scotland may secede.

Why would Scotland secede from the UK if the UK leaves the EU?

If Cameron really wanted a referendum he have called one in this term

Cameron doesn't want a referendum. The British people do, though.

Duggys Housemate

LindowMan wrote: »

Well, we best make sure we aren't associate member, then. Let's just leave the EU fully.

Okee Dokee.

What do you mean? Do you mean we will have annual economic growth of 9.5%? Suits me fine.

No that's not what I meant because that ain't going to happen, unless you start off by reducing your wages by 80%. Then you can be like China, catching up. I said like China in terms of having to make trade agreements with the EU.

That's just scaremongering of the sort we heard over ten years ago when Europhiles were telling us that Britain will suffer as a result of not joining the euro and that Paris and Frankfurt will overtake London as financial and economic powerhouses. What a load of rubbish that turned out to be.

,

Logical fallacy. People warned you about stuff in the past so all warnings about anything in the future are to be ignored. If you leave the EU proper then immigrants stop arriving, imports and exports are subjected to trade duties - probably punitive - a tax on capital can be added to transactions with the UK and your economy will collapse by 20%.

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I said like China in terms of having to make trade agreements with the EU.

Why's that?

People warned you about stuff in the past

Most of which turned out to be crap.

If you leave the EU proper then immigrants stop arriving,

Good. We're full. The doors should be shut and bolted.

imports and exports are subjected to trade duties - probably punitive - a tax on capital can be added to transactions with the UK and your economy will collapse by 20%.

Again, it's more over-the-top scaremongering like we heard when Britain rightly decided not to join the euro. And this scaremongering will just be as crap as that scaremongering.

The EU sells more to Britain than Britain sells to the EU. Even with Britain outside the EU the Germans are still going to want to sell us their BMWs and the French will still want to sell us their foul cheeses and crap cars. Britain isn't a part of the US but we still trade with it.

And, anyway, only 10% of the UK economy is involved in trade with the EU.

Duggys Housemate

LindowMan wrote: »

Why's that?

Christ on a stick. The EU is a free trade zone. If you leave it you don't get to free trade with it.

Most of which turned out to be crap.

That logical fallacy again. In fact you make the logical fallacy while part quoting my rebuttal of it.

Good. We're full. The doors should be shut and bolted.

Which will affect the economy in London which depends on immigrant labour and immigrant money, especially in the city. Expect retaliatory measures from Spain, France et al.

Again, it's more over-the-top scaremongering like we heard when Britain rightly decided not to join the euro. And this scaremongering will just be as crap as that scaremongering.

Again. I am making a different argument from the pro Euro side which I am

A) not making
didn't make.

You can logically oppose the Euro while supporting the free trade zone.

The EU sells more to Britain than Britain sells to the EU. Even with Britain outside the EU the Germans are still going to want to sell us their BMWs and the French will still want to sell us their foul cheeses and crap cars. Britain isn't a part of the US but we still trade with it.

And, anyway, only 10% of the UK economy is involved in trade with the EU.

Where do you get your stats from? Links.

Duggys Housemate

Actual stats. From (http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/united-kingdom/export-import.html)

UK’s Import and Export Indicators and Statistics at a Glance (2010)

Total value of exports: US$405.6 billion

Primary exports - commodities: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco

Primary exports partners: US (14.71 percent), Germany (11.06 percent), France (8 percent), Netherlands (7.79 percent), Ireland (6.89 percent), Belgium (4.65 percent), Spain (4 percent)

Total value of imports: US$546.5 billion

Primary imports - commodities: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels; foodstuffs

Primary imports partners: Germany (12.87 percent), US (9.74 percent), China (8.88 percent), Netherlands (6.94 percent), France (6.64 percent), Belgium (4.86 percent), Norway (4.84 percent), Ireland (4.01 percent), Italy (3.99 percent)

Imports and exports mostly to the EU. The UK imports more than it exports.

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

If you leave it you don't get to free trade with it.

You are talking rubbish. Britain could free trade with the EU outside of the EU.

The UK imports more from EU member states than it exports to them, so the EU countries would be substantially harming their own economies if they imposed tariffs on Britain.

In other words, if the EU imposes trade tariffs on a free and independent Britain it will hurt YOUR economies more than it'll hurt ours.

That logical fallacy again. In fact you make the logical fallacy while part quoting my rebuttal of it.

Over ten years ago when Britain wisely decided to say "No, thanks" on joining the euro, your Europhile brethren were spouting a load of scaremongering nonsense along the lines of "Britain's economy will suffer whilst those in the Eurozone will boom and Frankfurt and Paris will overtake London as a financial powerhouse because you haven't adopted the euro".

But, as we all know, what appeared to be Europhile scaremongering drivel turned out to be exactly that - Europhile scaremongering drivel.

which depends on immigrant labour and immigrant money

Rubbish.

Expect retaliatory measures from Spain, France et al.

No, I wouldn't be expecting it. I doubt even the French could stoop that low.

Where do you get your stats from? Links.

I think it's only commonsense that the Germans will still want to sell us their cars and the French will still want to sell us their cheeses and wines even after we've left the EU.

And if they don't, it will be mainly their problem at the end of the day, not ours. We can get along fine without German cars and French cheeses.

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Actual stats. From (http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/united-kingdom/export-import.html)

UK’s Import and Export Indicators and Statistics at a Glance (2010)

Total value of exports: US$405.6 billion

Primary exports - commodities: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco

Primary exports partners: US (14.71 percent), Germany (11.06 percent), France (8 percent), Netherlands (7.79 percent), Ireland (6.89 percent), Belgium (4.65 percent), Spain (4 percent)

Total value of imports: US$546.5 billion

Primary imports - commodities: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels; foodstuffs

Primary imports partners: Germany (12.87 percent), US (9.74 percent), China (8.88 percent), Netherlands (6.94 percent), France (6.64 percent), Belgium (4.86 percent), Norway (4.84 percent), Ireland (4.01 percent), Italy (3.99 percent)

Imports and exports mostly to the EU. The UK imports more than it exports.

Here are some inconvenient truths for you.

• Under one-sixth of Britain's GDP is involved with EU trade; by 2020 only one third of our exports will be to the EU – only 10% of our economy will be involved with EU trade; the rest just carries the burden.
• The EU share of world GDP is expected to decrease from 35% in 2002 to 15% in 2050. Its share of world trade is expected to decrease from 18% in 2002 to 10% in 2050.
• By contrast the UK has been one of the world's most successful trading nations since global trade began. Our exports OUTSIDE the EU grew 45% faster than exports TO the EU in 1999-2005. Other parts of the world are growing faster and will cope with the future far better than the EU.
• Outside the EU, Britain could negotiate its own trade arrangements with other countries like India, China, Japan, the US, Brazil and Australia. As a member of the EU, we cannot negotiate with these growing countries for ourselves - the EU does it for us. Size may give the EU negotiating clout, but the objectives of the negotiation are French and German, not British. Outside the EU, Britain could make much better deals for ourselves, deals that suit British trade, not EU trade.
• Britain runs a trade deficit of 4.5% with the EU but a trade surplus with the rest of the world.

http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_impactonjobs.html

Duggys Housemate

LindowMan wrote: »

You are talking rubbish. Britain could free trade with the EU outside of the EU.

The UK imports more from EU member states than it exports to them, so the EU countries would be substantially harming their own economies if they imposed tariffs on Britain.

In other words, if the EU imposes trade tariffs on a free and independent Britain it will hurt YOUR economies more than it'll hurt ours.

That's a hilarious excuse for a trade deficit by the way but ..... leaving the EU will automatically invalidate free trade agreements so you will have to renegotiate them. The EU will impose sanctions where it benefits the EU - like capital restrictions etc. allowing Frankfurt to Hoover up the fleeing banks and their employees.

Over ten years ago when Britain wisely decided to say "No, thanks" on joining the euro, your Europhile brethren were spouting a load of scaremongering nonsense along the lines of "Britain's economy will suffer whilst those in the Eurozone will boom and Frankfurt and Paris will overtake London as a financial powerhouse because you haven't adopted the euro".

Cool story, bro. Now back to the argument at hand....

No, I wouldn't be expecting it. I doubt even the French could stoop that low.

So you are not expecting retaliatory measures if Britain closes shop, and stops immigration from France or Spain.

And if they don't, it will be mainly their problem at the end of the day, not ours. We can get along fine without German cars and French cheeses.

With English cars and English cheeses?

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The EU will impose sanctions where it benefits the EU - like capital restrictions etc. allowing Frankfurt to Hoover up the fleeing banks and their employees.

Again, it's just scaremongering. You lot told us the same thing back in 2002 when the Euro was introduced. You told us that banks and bankers would flee the City of London and go to Paris and Frankfurt and that those two would overtake London. Of course, it never happened. In fact, between 2002 and now London has just pulled even further ahead of Paris and Frankfurt.

The only thing that will drive business out of the City of London would be if Britain stayed in the EU and the EU imposes its financial services tax on London. The French are desperate - and have even admitted - that they want Paris to take some of the City's power and wealth. They want to get their filthy mitts on some of it. The City of London is threatened by being IN the EU and it would be better off out.

So you are not expecting retaliatory measures if Britain closes shop, and stops immigration from France or Spain.

Britain should have control of her own borders. Why should we let unelected foreigners in a foreign country control OUR borders? It should be the British Government, not anybody else, who decides how many people they let into our already incredibly overcrowded country. One of the first and foremost duties of any government should be to control how many people it lets into the country. Unfortunately, we can't do that properly within the EU and so we need to leave the EU so we can not only limit immigration into Britain from outside the EU but also limit immigration to Britain from inside the EU. If the French and Spanish or Irish or anybody else aren't happy with that, tough. And if they take "retaliatary measures" on a government just doing one of the things that people around the world (except in the rest of the EU other than Britain) expect their government to do - namely to control the rate of immigration into its own country - then there will be something very sick and sinister going on.

With English cars and English cheeses?

Well, why not? We have more cheese than the French, and I would rather drive an Aston Martin than a Renault.

Duggys Housemate

LindowMan wrote: »

Here are some inconvenient truths for you.

• Under one-sixth of Britain's GDP is involved with EU trade; by 2020 only one third of our exports will be to the EU – only 10% of our economy will be involved with EU trade; the rest just carries the burden.
  
• The EU share of world GDP is expected to decrease from 35% in 2002 to 15% in 2050. Its share of world trade is expected to decrease from 18% in 2002 to 10% in 2050.
  
• By contrast the UK has been one of the world's most successful trading nations since global trade began. Our exports outside the EU grew 45% faster than exports to the EU in 1999-2005. Other parts of the world are growing faster and will cope with the future far better.
• 
  
• Outside the EU, Britain could negotiate its own trade arrangements with other countries like India, China, Japan, the US, Brazil and Australia. As a member of the EU, we cannot negotiate with these growing countries for ourselves - the EU does it for us. Size may give the EU negotiating clout, but the objectives of the negotiation are French and German, not British. Outside the EU, Britain could make much better deals for ourselves, deals that suit British trade, not EU trade.
  
• Britain runs a trade deficit of 4.5% with the EU but a trade surplus with the rest of the world.

http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/dyk_impactonjobs.html

You've replaced actual facts with bollocks statistics there. The links I linked to prove that the UK exports and imports primarily from the EU. in fact you import and export more to Ireland than China.

Sure the world % GDP of the EU is going to drop as China grows but so is the UK.

your trade deficit with the EU dwarfs your trade surplus with the rest if the world.

As for the percentage of your GDP which is trade, the domestic economy is 70% or more. Meaning the 16% of the economy which is now dependent on the exports to the EU is more than 50% of all trade. The extrapolation to 2020 is a guess.

And percentages differ in other ways too. The most important part of any economy is its private sector and the most important part of the private sector is that part of the private sector which exports. As opposed to fish n chip shops. After all the government is 40% of the economy, do you think it more important than exporters to the EU, or otherwise. Of course not. If the UK had 0% exports to the EU do you think it would just harm the economy by 16%? The multiplier effect will harm the economy by 2-3 times that figure. Just an example.

The big issue is that with your "closed borders" and leaving the EU is the effect in the City of London. Possibly the banks will stay, but it would be very easy for the EU to put a tax on capital movements into the EU from the UK, and banks won't be able to hire outside the small British graduate pool. Hardly a consideration for the foreign run banks.

Duggys Housemate

LindowMan wrote: »

Again, it's just scaremongering. You lot told us the same thing back in 2002 when the Euro was introduced.

again the logical fallacy. And I appear to have been in the UK in 2001 as part of a "lot" telling you about the Euro. I was in Ireland agnostic about the Euro.

Well, why not? We have more cheese than the French, and I would rather drive an Aston Martin than a Renault.

Import substitution rarely works. I like English cheese but on the car front - comparing like with like - England clearly loses out.

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

You've replaced actual facts with bollocks statistics there.

Yeah? I could easily say that I've replaced bollocks with actual facts.

And that is precisely what I've done. Replaced Europhile myths and scaremongering bollocks with facts. Only a small percentage of Britain's GDP is involved in trade with the EU. It is not hard to find such stats.

As it says here:

The UK's trade with the EU, which was in surplus before we joined in 1973, has been in deficit in all subsequent years but one. (Over the last six years, the UK's cumulative trade deficit with the EU was £190 billion, but it ran a £21 billion surplus with the rest of the world during the same period). It is also worth noting that over the period of UK membership in the EU as a whole, we have maintained a cumulative trade surplus with every continent in the world except Europe.

The UK's trade with the outside world is already more important than its trade with the EU.

[*]The UK's trade with non-EU countries is greater than 60% of its total trade and is increasing. This figure - unlike figures commonly circulated by the EU - takes into account the distortion of the Rotterdam effect, whereby UK exports sent on to non-EU countries via Continental ports are erroneously counted as exports to the EU.

[*]A decade ago, the EU's share of global GDP was 25%, but by 2050 it is expected to fall to 15%.

[*]The US and Canada together account for nearly a third of the foreign direct investment (FDI) in the UK, while the UK is the largest foreign investor in the US.

http://www.ampers.me.uk/2013/02/five-inconvenient-truths-of-uks-trade.html

The big issue is that with your "closed borders" and leaving the EU is the effect in the City of London. Possibly the banks will stay, but it would be very easy for the EU to put a tax on capital movements into the EU from the UK, and banks won't be able to hire outside the small British graduate pool. Hardly a consideration for the foreign run banks.

How many times do I have to tell you that I take no notice of such scaremongering crap? We've heard it all before and it was crap. This current scaremongering will just turn out to be crap, too.

LindowMan

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

but on the car front - comparing like with like - England clearly loses out.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Renaults and Citroens beat Aston Martins and Jaguars, don't they? What's Bond thinking of?

Instead of driving this....



he'd look much cooler driving this....

The Corinthian

LindowMan wrote: »

Why would Scotland secede from the UK if the UK leaves the EU?

Moot point as the Scottish referendum will have taken place long before any EU one.

LindowMan wrote: »

The EU sells more to Britain than Britain sells to the EU.

The US sells more to Britain than Britain sells to the US too. All you're really pointing out is Britain has a problem with balance of trade in general.

LindowMan wrote: »

You are talking rubbish. Britain could free trade with the EU outside of the EU.

Like Switzerland and Norway? If so, you'll find that both of them have to adopt EU regulation to do so and have little or no right to refuse to do so, if they want to continue trading, let alone any say in how that regulation is formulated.

But hey, sure, Britian would still be able to trade with the EU - business as usual, including most of the regulation.

The UK imports more from EU member states than it exports to them, so the EU countries would be substantially harming their own economies if they imposed tariffs on Britain.

In other words, if the EU imposes trade tariffs on a free and independent Britain it will hurt YOUR economies more than it'll hurt ours.

I don't think that there is any doubt that the EU and UK would work out some trade agreement to avoid this, only that the UK will pay a price for access to the EU market, much like Switzerland or Norway.

If so, then the UK will still be subject to the bulk of EU regulation - including freedom of movement, btw. If not, I'd not overestimate the EU's collective wish to keep that trade going with the UK.

I doubt even the French could stoop that low.

Is it just the French you hate or are you equally prejudiced against other foreigners?

LindowMan wrote: »

Yeah? I could easily say that I've replaced bollocks with actual facts.

Nah, you posted bollocks. You posted data from two political eurosceptic sites, which were not only lacking of any references, but (outside of other political eurosceptic sites) you will not find corroborated anywhere else.

Political sites peddle propaganda, not facts. If you want facts, try some sites that deal principally with economics and finance or, better still, central statistics offices.

oscarBravo

LindowMan wrote: »

Why should we let unelected foreigners in a foreign country control OUR borders?

The xenophobia is never too far under the skin.

The Corinthian

oscarBravo wrote: »

The xenophobia is never too far under the skin.

Indeed. The irony is that this poster, who appears to be British, is posting their views to an Irish bulletin board. For us, he or she is nothing more than a foreigner too.

djpbarry

LindowMan wrote: »

Over ten years ago when Britain wisely decided to say "No, thanks" on joining the euro, your Europhile brethren were spouting a load of scaremongering nonsense along the lines of "Britain's economy will suffer whilst those in the Eurozone will boom and Frankfurt and Paris will overtake London as a financial powerhouse because you haven't adopted the euro".

But, as we all know, what appeared to be Europhile scaremongering drivel turned out to be exactly that - Europhile scaremongering drivel.

Without knowing what would have happened had the UK joined the Euro, it's impossible to say on way or the other.

But things ain't exactly rosy in the UK right now, are they?

LindowMan wrote: »

Rubbish.

Been to London lately? There are a lot of immigrants here. I work in a pretty high profile institute in central London and more than half of the staff are non-British. Like it or not, immigrants like myself are playing a big part in driving London's, and by extension, the UK's, economy.

LindowMan wrote: »

Renaults and Citroens beat Aston Martins and Jaguars, don't they?

In terms of affordability, yes, they do. Hands down.

LindowMan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Moot point as the Scottish referendum will have taken place long before any EU one.

Someone pointed out that Scotland may leave the UK should the UK leave the EU. And I pointed out that I struggle to discover why that would be the case.

The US sells more to Britain than Britain sells to the US too. All you're really pointing out is Britain has a problem with balance of trade in general.

I'm pointing out that when it comes to trade, the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU as the EU sells more to us than we sell to them.

Like Switzerland and Norway?

The EU has free trade aggreements with 53 countries. I can't see why Britain, outside the EU, cannot become the 54th.

And as I've discovered, the EU now exempts services and many goods from duties anyway. In 2009 the UK charged customs duty of just 1.76% on non-EU imports. This is so low that the EU Common Market is basically redundant as a customs union with tariff walls.

Is it just the French you hate or are you equally prejudiced against other foreigners?

Why do you seem so surprised that an Englishman hates the French?

Nah, you posted bollocks. You posted data from two political eurosceptic sites, which were not only lacking of any references, but (outside of other political eurosceptic sites) you will not find corroborated anywhere else.

I see. So you only believe the bollocks told to you by Europhile websites.

LindowMan

djpbarry wrote: »

Without knowing what would have happened had the UK joined the Euro, it's impossible to say on way or the other.

If the UK had joined the Eu we'd be in a lot deeper doollally than we're in now. And, like Ireland and the other countries who ignored the warnings from many in Britain and joined the Euro, we would be restricted in taking the necessary steps to get our economy back on track. For example, we won't even be able to set interest rates to suit Britain's economy and instead we would have the ECB set our interest rates, even if those interest rates are not good for the economy. At the end of the day, you Irish always have interest rates which suit the German economy rather than your own, whereas us British can set interest rates in our economic interest.

Any mouth-foaming, swivel-eyed Europhiles on here who believe Britain would have been better off had it joined the Euro are more seriously deluded than anyone could ever have imagined.

But things ain't exactly rosy in the UK right now, are they?

They'd be a whole lot worse had we been in the Eurozone. And being outside the Euro means we have more tools at our disposal to get the economy running than those countries who were daft enough to join the euro.

Been to London lately? There are a lot of immigrants here. I work in a pretty high profile institute in central London and more than half of the staff are non-British. Like it or not, immigrants like myself are playing a big part in driving London's, and by extension, the UK's, economy.

Britain's full. We can't take anymore immigrants and many public services are already showing signs of strain and are struggling to come with the influx. Now is the time to say enough is enough and shut the door. That's why I support the government's current attempt to cut immigrtaion into Britain from the hundreds of thousands, as it was under Labour who increased it to get the immigrant vote, to the tens of thousands.

In terms of affordability, yes, they do. Hands down.

There's a reason why Aston Martins and Jaguars cost more than Citroens.

Give me an Aston Martin, a Jaguar or a Mini anyday of the week.

The Corinthian

LindowMan wrote: »

Someone pointed out that Scotland may leave the UK should the UK leave the EU. And I pointed out that I struggle to discover why that would be the case.

I know, I was actually agreeing with you, but pointing out why.

I'm pointing out that when it comes to trade, the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU as the EU sells more to us than we sell to them.

And as I pointed out, I wouldn't overestimate how much either. For example, that trade deficit does not take into account the benefit to the British economy of free access to the EU money markets - take that into account and the UK needs the EU a lot more than the other way around.

The EU has free trade aggreements with 53 countries. I can't see why Britain, outside the EU, cannot become the 54th.

Sure, but don't fall into the trap of believing that strings are not attached to such agreements - as Norway will attest, for example.

Why do you seem so surprised that an Englishman hates the French?

I'm actually surprised that you've failed to evolve very far. Even the Irish have largely shed our tendency towards Anglophobia.

I see. So you only believe the bollocks told to you by Europhile websites.

What europhile Websites? Duggy and I (in this post) have actually cited financial Websites - indeed, I cited the Economist which is infamous for it's scathing cynicism of the EU. No europhile sources from what I can see.

You, on the other hand, have quoted only from eurosceptic campaign sites; propaganda platforms that are routinely debunked for massaging or inventing their 'facts'.

Personally I'd avoid either europhile or eurosceptic sites, if I can help it. Either is designed to disseminate propaganda, not the truth. Maybe you should too?

The Corinthian

LindowMan wrote: »

There's a reason why Aston Martins and Jaguars cost more than Citroens.

Yes, because they're luxury goods.

djpbarry

LindowMan wrote: »

I'm pointing out that when it comes to trade, the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU as the EU sells more to us than we sell to them.

You sure about that? What percentage of EU exports go to the UK? What percentage of UK exports go to the EU?

LindowMan wrote: »

If the UK had joined the Eu we'd be in a lot deeper doollally than we're in now.

You have no idea whether or not that would have been the case.

LindowMan wrote: »

And, like Ireland and the other countries who ignored the warnings from many in Britain and joined the Euro, we would be restricted in taking the necessary steps to get our economy back on track.

But the UK economy is not "back on track" at all? In fact, Ireland has done a far better job of getting "back on track" than the UK has.

LindowMan wrote: »

Britain's full. We can't take anymore immigrants and many public services are already showing signs of strain and are struggling to come with the influx.

Many public services would be impossible to provide without immigrants, the NHS in particular.

LindowMan wrote: »

There's a reason why Aston Martins and Jaguars cost more than Citroens.

I'm sure there is. Of course, that matters little to the average Briton, who couldn't possibly hope to afford such luxury.