Europe..

[iffy]

Another way of looking at it is that every time a fringe country fucks up, the Germans end up having to pay. They always pay in the end. You could see it as them 'dictating', they see themselves as chequebook of last resort for spain, italy, ireland, portugal, greece.....

[DMR]

The main reason that Germany is such a powerful player in Europe is due to the billions the allies pumped into West Germany after WWII. ironic really, isn't it?

Nothing to do with having the highest GDP in Europe for yonks then...

[4D]

Investment and infrastructure Dave!

[RobertT]

I would vote in, the country probably would vote out.  I think a no vote is best for everyone long term even though it goes against my own personal view, because the inevitable end game would cause so many people to implode in the UK.  The end game that was clearly set out at its origin of total social, economic and political cohesion - a single country in our terms.

The biggest problem with people trying to argue for the EU in this country is they often state how they try and protect sovereignty.  The whole point of the EU is to get rid of it.

You may wonder why I am still pro, its mainly because I am not really that nationalistic to be honest.  Sporting wise maybe, but I support the B&U Lions, the European team in the Ryder Cup and I suppose if we ever managed to get a game of air hockey sorted with Mars, I'd support the Earth.

[herthab]

Nothing to do with having the highest GDP in Europe for yonks then...

We, along with The US and France, rebuilt their industry after the war. That is a fact. Our own industry was severely impacted straight after 1945 and arguably never fully recovered. I'd argue that if we hadn't bailed them out back then there's no way they'd be the economic power they are today.

[ReadingRed]

We, along with The US and France, rebuilt their industry after the war. That is a fact.

Err, no, it's not. It's a myth that's been peddled over over many years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

[Peter Gibbons]

Err, no, it's not. It's a myth that's been peddled over over many years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

I'm no expert, but I wonder whether Germany is similar to Japan in that the rise of Japan through the second half of the 20th Century was brought about by the framework and structures put in place by the yanks.  So, perhaps Germany didn't get as much of the Marshall Aid as the UK, but we (for 'we' read, 'the US') built a kind of Utopian economy from the ground up (apologies if this was stated in the article you linked, only read the first half, tldr).  I recall learning, for example, that the "job for life" ethos in Japan that was prevalent up until the 2007 crash was put in place by the yanks, despite the fact that such a concept has never existed in the US, which is all about labour market de-regulation.

[iffy]

We, along with The US and France, rebuilt their industry after the war. That is a fact. Our own industry was severely impacted straight after 1945 and arguably never fully recovered. I'd argue that if we hadn't bailed them out back then there's no way they'd be the economic power they are today.

Yeah, this is horseshit. The Germans are risk-averse and actually pretty conservative. So they save a lot and invest a lot. They don't sink everything they earn into property. In contrast, in Britain we spend what we make, we don't save, and we borrow too much.

Because they have an export led economy (they make their money selling BMWs to Brazil) so they've reaped the rewards of the Euro being a cheaper currency than the deutschmark would have been. They've also done well out of everyone else having cheap credit (because they have used that money to buy BMWs and other german made things). But they're paying for it now, because the reason the euro was cheaper than the mark was that it had more risk in it. That risk was that the club med countries were basket cases. Which, it turns out, they were.

For the last fifteen years our economy has been fuelled by a housing bubble, public sector spend (but revenue not capital investment - so it's gone on salaries not buildings) and a casino-based financial services sector. Everything else has been flat, or in decline. Now these things are all fucked, no-one's got any savings and there's no job creation and won't be for a decade. These things have fuck all to do with the euro, or the EU. We managed this all by ourselves. If we're judging on results, I would like to vote that we pull out of the UK. It makes about as much sense of pulling out of the EU.

[Flashheart]

Euurrgghh, politics.

Note to self..... Don't open the thread named 'Europe' again.

[jonny72]

The biggest problem with people trying to argue for the EU in this country is they often state how they try and protect sovereignty.  The whole point of the EU is to get rid of it.

The sovereignty argument is complete and utter bollocks.

Without the EU we have local and national government, not sure why adding an international level makes any difference as long as we still have a vote. I know some will argue about the unelected element of the EU but that is put in place by elected national governments so again, no real difference to me.

Then you have the UK factor. We're already four different countries under one government. Why is the UK good and the EU bad? Plenty would argue we're separate countries with separate needs and wishes. Why the different view on the EU?

Biggest issue is that an alarming percentage of the population really don't give a fuck who is in charge, as proved by the poor turnouts in elections. Would a vote on EU membership really mean anything with a low turnout? Add on that our individual votes are basically weighted differently due to the way the boundaries are drawn and the electoral system, meaning for example that Labour can form a government with a lot less votes than the Conservatives can.

It is all complete and utter bollocks. Not just the sovereignty thing, the whole political system is bollocks and totally fucked.

[Peter Gibbons]

The sovereignty argument is complete and utter bollocks.

Without the EU we have local and national government, not sure why adding an international level makes any difference as long as we still have a vote. I know some will argue about the unelected element of the EU but that is put in place by elected national governments so again, no real difference to me.

Then you have the UK factor. We're already four different countries under one government. Why is the UK good and the EU bad? Plenty would argue we're separate countries with separate needs and wishes. Why the different view on the EU?

Biggest issue is that an alarming percentage of the population really don't give a fuck who is in charge, as proved by the poor turnouts in elections. Would a vote on EU membership really mean anything with a low turnout? Add on that our individual votes are basically weighted differently due to the way the boundaries are drawn and the electoral system, meaning for example that Labour can form a government with a lot less votes than the Conservatives can.

It is all complete and utter bollocks. Not just the sovereignty thing, the whole political system is bollocks and totally fucked.

My view on the low turnout issue is that it relates to the fact all mainstream parties operate within a very narrow portion in the centre of the political spectrum so electing one or other is not going to have a massive difference.  Case in point: the last election was fought on the level of cut-backs required.  Labour's unofficial mantra was that the tories would cut "too far, too deep" but in reality there was only about a 1.5%* difference in their proposed budgets.  I think it is a myth perpetrated by politicians that the economy hinges in any way on the actions of the government and that we are dealing with much more significant, global, forces.

*made up statistic because I can't be arsed to find the actual figure

[jonny72]

My view on the low turnout issue is that it relates to the fact all mainstream parties operate within a very narrow portion in the centre of the political spectrum so electing one or other is not going to have a massive difference.

There is a big difference in underlying philosophies. Such as the Conservatives believe in small government, reducing central spending, privatising public services and reducing taxes with Labour having an opposite view on all those points.

Whether that really makes any difference is arguable.

Think the biggest cause of people not voting is that all politicians are wankers.

[Peter Gibbons]

There is a big difference in underlying philosophies. Such as the Conservatives believe in small government, reducing central spending, privatising public services and reducing taxes with Labour having an opposite view on all those points.

Whether that really makes any difference is arguable.

Think the biggest cause of people not voting is that all politicians are wankers.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at really.  Using the privatisation example, how much difference does it really make in the grand scheme of things that we pay for electricity by direct debit each month, rather than as part of our tax bill?  I suppose there is a redistribution aspect in that direct taxation is progressive whereas an electricity bill is less so, but I still think that is tinkering at the margins.

[RedRag]

The sovereignty argument is complete and utter bollocks.

Without the EU we have local and national government, not sure why adding an international level makes any difference as long as we still have a vote. I know some will argue about the unelected element of the EU but that is put in place by elected national governments so again, no real difference to me.

Then you have the UK factor. We're already four different countries under one government. Why is the UK good and the EU bad? Plenty would argue we're separate countries with separate needs and wishes. Why the different view on the EU?

Biggest issue is that an alarming percentage of the population really don't give a fuck who is in charge, as proved by the poor turnouts in elections. Would a vote on EU membership really mean anything with a low turnout? Add on that our individual votes are basically weighted differently due to the way the boundaries are drawn and the electoral system, meaning for example that Labour can form a government with a lot less votes than the Conservatives can.

It is all complete and utter bollocks. Not just the sovereignty thing, the whole political system is bollocks and totally fucked.

[RedRag]

The sovereignty argument is complete and utter bollocks.
...
Then you have the UK factor. We're already four different countries under one government. Why is the UK good and the EU bad? Plenty would argue we're separate countries with separate needs and wishes. Why the different view on the EU?

You're too cynical - it's simple really:


More power to Parliament - and the unelected House of Lords = Good

Less power to E U and unelected Commission = Good

No independence for Scotland etc = Good

More duties and less power and less money for local government=Good

Westminster Oligarchy = Good