Re: questions for pops :)
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:04 am
by Legendary Apophis
According to those statistics I should be among those yelling at EU, because France is second spender and third in net negative benefits. As far as I know, I'm not...if it wasn't for the EU, only Germany would be standing properly now with worldwide crisis. Italian French and Spanish former currencies would be dead by now. Not to mention difficulties to maintain a coherant policy among Europe with each country having different money and different change rate. Being slaves of change rates (of course again Germany would be free from this). No thanks. Sure UK has a decent money, but not all countries from EU had a good one. Afterall, you kept yours, most didn't, so there's not much of a problem, you weren't forced to switch to €.
Brdavs' country gathers almost 3bil benefits (Slovenia isn't it?), but France "loose" 51, UK "loose" 57.
So what? It's logical richest ones help poorest ones. Let's not forget from where Ireland, Spain and Portugal come from, and even UK as Brdavs said, wasn't in much better health than it's now (prior to crisis).
Not to mention, Euro currency preserves more or less stability, just have a look at Iceland's money..
Logical that richest countries contribute the most and receive the least, otherwise, there wouldn't be a point, and newcomers from 70s & 80s wouldn't be where they are now!
As long as those benefiting countries don't act like "oh yes bring the cash in" then when it's done "what's this thing you call the EU? We've nothing to do with it!"...I'm fine with being among the negative countries. It's a two ways thing. Obviously. Thus why I'm quite hostile towards anti EU people from benefiting countries, from present and past.
Brdavs represents a person who's from newcomming countries and realizes goodness of EU, I'm part of the "old bunch" from EU, one of those spending the most, apparently. And I'm also positive, but unlike Brdavs; I cannot see as easily benefits from EU as he can. Because France are currently helpers.
Re: questions for pops :)
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:29 am
by Legendary Apophis
We can achieve more without the EU? Oh yes the good old utopia of united people. It would end a day or another into bureaucratic system like EU anyway, so what doesn't come now would come later. It's like empires in sgw like games, just because they aren't here yet doesn't mean they won't be there sooner or later.
Radiance wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:i like the way every pro-EU person involved in this discussion has missed the point that
we can achieve everything (AND MORE) the EU does but without the bureaucracy and the wasted money/resources. nothing said in favour of the EU (thus far) has proved that yet!
what will it take for you guys to admit that we can achieve everything the EU does, save ourselves a tonne of money and keep our freedoms and right to make OUR own laws, instead of handing over the rights to 75% of our laws to unelected people to which we have no recourse?
GIVE ME THAT 1 THING THAT PROVES ITS WORTH IT!
Hey G, I just proved you are right. Quit yapping, you have won.
You didn't prove anything. Brdavs and I explained it well. Sure I didn't go really far in explanation, I'm in a hurry atm.
Radiance wrote:Legendary Apophis wrote:According to those statistics I should be among those yelling at EU, because France is second spender and third in net negative benefits. As far as I know, I'm not...if it wasn't for the EU, only Germany would be standing properly now with worldwide crisis. Italian French and Spanish former currencies would be dead by now. Not to mention difficulties to maintain a coherant policy among Europe with each country having different money and different change rate. Being slaves of change rates (of course again Germany would be free from this). No thanks. Sure UK has a decent money, but not all countries from EU had a good one. Afterall, you kept yours, most didn't, so there's not much of a problem, you weren't forced to switch to €.
Brdavs' country gathers almost 3bil benefits (Slovenia isn't it?), but France "loose" 51, UK "loose" 57.
So what? It's logical richest ones help poorest ones. Let's not forget from where Ireland, Spain and Portugal come from, and even UK as Brdavs said, wasn't in much better health than it's now (prior to crisis).
Not to mention, Euro currency preserves more or less stability, just have a look at Iceland's money..
Logical that richest countries contribute the most and receive the least, otherwise, there wouldn't be a point, and newcomers from 70s & 80s wouldn't be where they are now!
As long as those benefiting countries don't act like "oh yes bring the cash in" then when it's done "what's this thing you call the EU? We've nothing to do with it!"...I'm fine with being among the negative countries. It's a two ways thing. Obviously. Thus why I'm quite hostile towards anti EU people from benefiting countries, from present and past.
Brdavs represents a person who's from newcomming countries and realizes goodness of EU, I'm part of the "old bunch" from EU, one of those spending the most, apparently. And I'm also positive, but unlike Brdavs; I cannot see as easily benefits from EU as he can. Because France are currently helpers.
You have no income and you pay no taxes.
Of COURSE you won't complain.
And I'm the only pro EU in France? I don't think so!
Infact, students were LOW on numbers to come voting for EU elections. Pro EU parties won by alot. Lower classes & students didn't vote in big amounts according to statistics (for France). UMP+PS+Green+Democrats (pro EU)= almost 80% of voters (45% of possible voters). Those who voted, majorly voted for EU.
80% of 45% of about 30-35mil is QUITE beyond non working students and elders ranks.
People should realize that sometimes taxes have a use and if there was none they would be majorly screwed up (and the "hangover" would be quite hurtful).
Re: questions for pops :)
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:40 am
by [KMA]Avenger
sigh!
10 reasons why we should leave the EU:
1. Since we joined the EEC in 1973, we have been in surplus with every continent in the world except Europe. Over those 27 years, we have run a trade deficit with the other member states that averages out at £30 million per day.
2. In 2010 our gross contribution to the EU budget will be £14 billion. To put this figure in context, all the reductions announced by George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference would, collectively, save £7 billion a year across the whole of government spending.
3. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.
4. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.
5. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.
6. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.
7. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.
8. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.
9. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven.
10. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again.
now, give me JUST1 reason why the UK shouldn't leave the EU IMMEDIATELY and let the EU die the death it deserves...OHH!!! wait...you cant!
Re: questions for pops :)
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:24 pm
by Legendary Apophis
[KMA]Avenger wrote:
now, give me JUST1 reason why the UK shouldn't leave the EU IMMEDIATELY and let the EU die the death it deserves...OHH!!! wait...you cant!
Oh damn I missed the drama line in my last post.
That statement shows:
-We don't give, we only receive, we don't give a damn about others in Europe, we are selfish.
-We think EU lives only thanks to us, while it lived for almost 20 years without UK among it.
-The UK suffered alot from EU and only got cons from it and we can hear Nick Griffin's voice in the background.
-We don't want Europe to unite, we want it divided & weak, in favour of other superpowers growth to have opportunity to go unchallenged.
When I read that, I indeed think go ahead, get the hell out. But then I remember it's fortunately not all UKers opinion. Hopefully at least. Oh well, Nick Griffin's nationalism and Europe continental hate is popular nowadays, time to grow national ego and to feel uberawesome till one becomes 51st state and cry about quitting EU. But oh well, it's always after it's done one regrets!
[KMA]Avenger wrote:meh is all i can say to those yellow responses mate.
here's another one for all you bureaucratic lovers out there: the brussilians as you call them mate, dont pay tax as we do. and yet they keep voting for bigger EU Govt and more taxation, but they only pay 10% taxation themselves. on top of that, they dont pay VAT (sales tax) and they get a 20% reduction when they buy cars...there was 1 other form of Govt that did the same, they were called communists.
the EU heads/chiefs are nothing more than a glorified bunch, better known as the polit bureau.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 962829.ece@Radiance, if only the UK would leave
Sorry, I don't want to involve myself into headache worth Belgian politics, considering I'm french.
And well, time to buy yourself a US flag Avenger. Just incase. We never know!
If you were to manage to leave EU..
Re: questions for pops :)
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:32 pm
by [KMA]Avenger
this a LONG read, but i suggest you all read it from start to end.
if you cant be arsed to read it in its entirety then please dont even bother reading or replying to it!
[spoiler]Britain's suicide note
Monday, 14th December 2009
James Carver
Britain is to cease to exist as an independent nation and this has come about on a voluntary basis. In other words, we, as a nation, are effectively committing suicide.
What have we given up?
We had the greatest empire the world has ever known (which later evolved into the Commonwealth) and, having turned it into a Commonwealth with The Queen as its head, we subsequently turned our backs on its 54 countries with a population of approaching a billion people, by abandoning Commonwealth preferential trade, in favour of the so called advantages of local trade in Europe.
We have also given up our own sovereignty, or the right to be an independent nation with its people choosing their government and removing that government, when necessary. Instead, about 83% of our laws come directly from Brussels and are incorporated into our legal system without us being able to do anything about it.
Our politicians call this “sharing sovereignty” which is a nonsense, as, like virginity, sovereignty cannot be shared.
We have given up our democratic right to govern ourselves in favour of being governed by permanent, unelected and unremovable bureaucrats, deciding our future from their base in Brussels.
We have given up our financial independence and even sold two thirds of our gold reserves at $280 per ounce to show solidarity and loyalty to our new masters, the European Union. We now pay about £50m per day to those bureaucrats for the “privilege” of being governed by them.
Why did we do this?
Because our elected politicians did it for us without telling us what was happening.
When did it start?
After the Second World War (which we won) when we saved France and the rest of Europe from Germany under Hitler.
Who now governs us?
The EU, which is now run by France & Germany since the Treaty of the Elysee on 22nd January 1963, whereby they agreed to be the heart of Europe and have acted together ever since.
How did it all happen?
Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the EU explained it clearly, back in the 1950s with these words;
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super state without their peoples knowing what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
What was the starting point?
The European Coal and Steel Union in 1952 --- a pooling of resources amongst six countries in Europe, including Germany and France.
Next there was The Treaty of Rome in 1957.
This set up the European Economic Community (EEC), known as the Common Market. The Common Market sounds like economic cooperation only, but the treaty set up all the machinery of a single superstate, including a Council of Ministers, an executive Commission, a Parliament, a legal system based on continental law and headed by a European Court of Justice, a Central Bank and a tax system called VAT. There was also a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), although Fishing was not yet included. There was no way of changing any parts of the treaty unless all signatories agreed to do so.
The European Court of Justice was set up to give judgements which must always be in favour of closer political union. This court had little to do with “Justice” and much to do with “Integration”.
It should have, more accurately, been called the European Court of Integration.
This treaty, and all the others following, were drafted in accordance with the “Acquis Communitaire” system, “that which is acquired by the Community.” It means power, once handed to Brussels, is never returned, and cannot be re-negotiated.
The European Communities Act of 1972
In 1972 Edward Heath pushed through Parliament the European Communities Act.
This Act was not an international treaty, but an Act of Parliament deciding that it no longer was the supreme authority for lawmaking in this country. This Act was passed in anticipation of Britain applying for membership of the “Common Market” or European Economic Community (EEC). The public were never told about the consequences of this Act.
In the famous “Metric Martyr” High Court judgement 29 years later, in the spring of 2001, Judge Morgan ruled that because of this Act “We are now living under a new legal order. Parliament surrendered its sovereignty in 1972. The doctrine of the primacy of European Law holds good. European Union laws have over-riding force with priority over our law.” This judgement was confirmed on appeal.
Britain Joins The EEC in 1973 under the Treaty of Rome rules.
Britain, under Edward Heath, then asked to join the EEC, and in order to be accepted had to give up (secretly) our fishing waters to the EEC. This was on the insistence of Spain, already a member, which needed new fishing grounds, as its vast trawler fleet was rapidly depleting its own fish stocks. Heath later admitted that he had lied to the British people on this subject.
Our Referendum in 1975
Harold Wilson gave us a referendum to approve Britain’s 1973 entry into the EEC under the Treaty of Rome . He strongly advised the country to vote YES, giving so called “trade” reasons, and reassuring us about there being no loss of sovereignty. This we did, on a low vote of only 47%. There has never been another referendum in the last 35 years. Now, nobody below the age of 53 has ever had the chance to vote in a referendum on how this country should be governed.
The Single European Treaty of 1986
This treaty was signed by Margaret Thatcher who later said that she had been tricked into signing it. But Article “A” says the purpose of it was “ever closer union”
The treaty changed the Common Market or EEC to the European Community, with the word “Economic” left out. It also removed the national veto in certain areas by the principle of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers. It also introduced European control over lawmaking, employment, regional development, environment and foreign policy.
The Merchant Shipping Act of 1988
This was not an international treaty but a normal Parliamentary procedure which went through the House of Commons and the Lords and received the Queen’s Royal Assent. This Act regulated amongst other things, the allocation of our reduced fishing quotas in British waters to British registered Trawlers. The Act was declared illegal by the European Court of Justice (Integration?) and Britain was fined, and had also to pay compensation to Spanish trawler owners, at a total cost to this country of £100m.
The Conservative Government meekly paid up, with taxpayers money, without a murmer, so as not to alert the public about what a disaster we faced.
The Maastricht Treaty of 1993
The official name is: Treaty on European Union
Signed by John Major, it changed the European Community to the European Union. All citizens of the United Kingdom became citizens of the European Union (EU). One can only assume that this includes Her Majesty the Queen, and could be deemed an act of treason by a signatory such as Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, who actually signed the document. Indeed a private case of treason was taken out against him by Ross McWhirter, of Guinness Book of Records fame, who was successful in the magistrates court, but the case then had to go to the High Court. At this point the Attorney General in the Conservative government exercised his right to take over any private citizen’s right to go to law, and having replaced Ross McWhirter, he then conveniently “forgot” to take it any further, thus ending the treason procedure against Douglas Hurd.
The treaty created obligations of its citizens to the newly created European Union but did not state what they are. That was left to the European Court of Justice to decide. The ECJ was officially given full authority by the Treaty, to be the Supreme Court of Europe, under articles 169-172.
The Maastricht Treaty introduced Regionalisation throughout Europe, whereby the whole of the European Union is split up into Regions to be directly governed by Brussels, through the Committee of the Regions. Britain is now just 12 regions in Europe, and both British local and parliamentary government is being gradually replaced in power and influence.
The introduction of Regulations was provided by the Treaty. Regulations issued by the European Commission have an immediate effect in law in all countries, without being debated in any national parliament. Directives, on the other hand, are notionally debated before being incorporated into UK law after being adjusted or “gold plated” by the government. An example of a Directive is no 91/440, which led to the break up of British Rail and the privatisation of its main separate parts, being the railway track and the trains that run on it. The break up of the Post Office is because of EU Directives 97/67/EC & 2002/39/EC leading to the closure of 2,500 post offices in this country. The Government and opposition politicians never mention this in their arguments over the current distresses facing the Royal Mail.
Regulations will gradually replace Directives as more power goes to Brussels.
The Treaty also introduced the notion of a Common Defence Policy (European Army) and a single currency, the Euro. We all know about the Euro, but have you noticed the BBC talking about the European Navy patrolling the seas off Somalia, when the ship doing so is clearly a Royal Navy frigate acting under orders from Brussels?
In the early 1990s Britain entered the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) in preparation for joining the Euro single currency. However we entered at a difficult time, and at the wrong rate, and in attempting to maintain a fixed rate for the £ we suffered, in the following two years, high interest rates reaching 15% , unemployment rising from 1.5m to 3m, and 100,000 businesses going bankrupt. To avoid total monetary collapse and the loss of all our reserves to the speculators Britain was forced to leave the ERM and float the £. The £ has been floating happily ever since.
However the European Commission intends that Britain should be in the European currency because, “when they control our currency they control this country completely.”
The Treaty of Amsterdam of 1999. “just an amending treaty” Tony Blair.
Signed by Tony Blair in Rome, it placed EU control over further areas of British law, and established Europol, the EU state security service, which, like the KGB in the Soviet Union, is above the law, and cannot be sued, whatever damage they do in the exercise of their activities. Europol comes into being with full authority as an EU agency on January 1st 2010.
Treaty of Nice in 2001
Signed again by Tony Blair, giving up another 39 vetoes on areas of British life.
It introduced Corpus Juris or Continental law to replace British law such as Habeas Corpus, whereby a person cannot be held in custody for more than 96 hours without being charged. Under Corpus Juris a suspect can be held in custody for up to six months without charge, and then a further three months in custody without trial.
The concept of the accused being assumed to be innocent, unless proved guilty in a Court, will go. Already in EU civil law, the responsibility has fallen on the accused to prove his innocence.
The entitlement of a person charged with a criminal offence to be tried by a jury, will also go.
Any UK citizen can be extradited to another EU country on suspicion of committing an act which is not an offence in this country. He can be put in prison while waiting to be charged or to be put on trial by a magistrate or judge. In 2008
308 UK citizens were extradited in this way.
Article 191 grants the EU power to withdraw or prevent funding, private, state or at EU level, for political parties that the EU considers “unsuitable”. This means that the EU can suspend or ban a political party if it so decides. This could first apply to EU-critical parties and is associated with the laws of a police state.
The European Constitution Treaty of 2004
This was signed by Blair and was intended to be the second Treaty of Rome and the last treaty necessary to give Brussels full control of Europe with the creation of “The United States of Europe”.
The new state would have its own legal entity as a country, with its own Foreign Policy and its own embassies throughout the world. The countries which had signed up to the Treaty would cease to exist as separate legal entities and would end up as merely regions within the new state. For example there would be no British Embassy in Washington as our interests would be looked after for us by the European Ambassador in Washington. He could well be occupying the old British Embassy building which would be very suitable for this purpose, and the EU has the power to arrange this.
The European Commission would take full executive powers for itself, would choose its own members who could not be removed, even by the Parliament. Furthermore the Commission, if it so decided, would be able to change any existing arrangements in the same way as Hitler did in 1930s with his Amendment Act
In other words, the Commission was to be, a legally appointed Dictatorship.
The European Council, representing the heads of all the member states, and acting as a form of Trustee for the EU, would become merely a Senate, or talking shop, with no remaining powers.
Tony Blair was eventually persuaded to agree to have a Referendum on the new Constitution to ratify his signature. This forced France and Holland to do the same, and as they were thought likely to vote yes this would persuade Britain to do likewise.
To the horror of the politicians, both France and Holland voted decisively against the Treaty and this killed off the project for the time being. It also let off Blair from having a referendum in Britain.
Meanwhile in the General Election of 2005, two months before the French Referendum, all three main parties in the UK promised in their manifestos, that if voted into power, they would give the voters a referendum on any Constitutional Treaty.
The European Reform Treaty of 2007 ( The Lisbon Treaty)
After the killing (forever?) of the Constitutional Treaty of 2004 the Euro politicians gradually recovered from the shock of the French and Dutch reversals and set up the Lisbon Treaty which, they said, was not a Constitutional treaty at all. It was instead merely a “tidying up exercise” to help the European Commission be more efficient in governing the enlarged Europe of 27 nations.
In order to be more efficient in governing it does help to be a dictatorship. A dictatorship does not have to spend time and energy in consulting or listening to the people or ever arranging a general election.
The word “Reform” was put into the Treaty to enable the previous treaties to be reformed or adjusted. The actual wording of the European Reform Treaty is very difficult to understand because it keeps on referring to previous treaties and the reader has no way of really grasping what it means without the help of an experienced constitutional lawyer. No ordinary Member of Parliament would master what it really meant.
However the experts who did understand what it was about, included Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the ex French President and author of the “dead” Constitution of 2004, who said it was virtually the same as the 2004 Constitution.
The only differences were the lack of the word “Constitution” in the name, which was replaced by the word “Reform”, the removal of the 12 star national flag and the EU “Ode to Joy” anthem from the treaty text.
The two latter items are already being added back to all EU procedures currently taking place. The Ode to Joy was used to celebrate Hitler’s birthday.
The Irish were required by their own Constitution to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and this took place in 2008. Again, much to the consternation of the politicians the Irish voted NO in their referendum.
However, in the summer of 2009 Brussels again presented to Ireland the same referendum on the unchanged Treaty with the “invitation” to vote again on it until they reached the right answer.
The Irish voted YES this time round, and once Poland and the Czech Republic reluctantly followed Ireland, without a referendum, the Treaty was finally ratified by the politicians (but not the peoples) of all EU countries and became law over all the EU on December 1st 2009.
Meanwhile Britain was denied the right to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, affecting the entire future of this country, by Gordon Brown, the leader of our Labour Government who denied that the Treaty was the same as the Constitution Treaty. He was aided by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and both of them instructed their parties to vote directly against what each party had promised in their 2005 Election Manifestos; namely to have a Referendum on any Constitutional changes affecting Britain.
Between them they both broke their election promises and forced our Westminster Parliament to vote its parliamentary sovereignty into oblivion, or into the hands of unelected bureaucrats to govern us forever, without us being able, legally, to do anything about it .
The Lisbon Treaty does include virtually all the terms of its predecessor, the 2004 Constitutional Treaty, which have been described earlier and will be the last treaty required. There will not be any more treaties because the European Commission has now acquired all the powers it wanted. The Commission has become a legally created Dictatorship although the way it was done leaves very serious doubts about the whole concept of a truly united Europe.
How did the politicians get away with it?
Because it was done so slowly we did not notice. It was so boring and complicated that we ignored it. The politicians lied to us all the time and we believed them.
Just as Jean Monnet had planned.
The Future
The Conservative Party have gone back on the now infamous “cast iron guarantee” and have told us that they will not now hold any referendum. They will merely try to stop further powers going to the EU in the foreseeable future. However this is impossible and we must see what happens if they get into power in our Westminster Parliament. They will find themselves up against European law which they must obey if they wish to remain in the European Union.
Two perfect examples of this will be:
First, when we are required by the Commission to give up the Pound and enter the Euro money system. This is a requirement of both the 2004 Constitution and more importantly the Lisbon Treaty. One of its clauses states that “the currency of the Union shall be the Euro”, and you cannot be more plain than that. There is going to be a political explosion when it happens. The Conservatives can do nothing about it except make a decision to join the Euro against all their promises to the electorate or take the opportunity to make a final break and leave the EU, which any country can still do under the terms of Lisbon.
The second perfect example will arise when the Commission “requires” Britain to change over to driving on the right, which the Commission can do as it has dictatorial powers over us and from its point of view is the logical thing to do. After all you can hardly have part of a single country driving on the left with the rest of it driving on the right.
You may think that this is an exaggeration and the whole thing is becoming farcical.
But it is no more farcical than a previously sovereign country, such as ours, committing suicide, which Britain seems to have done .
----------------0---------------
If you wish to embarrass your MP, ask whether his or her loyalty is to the Queen or to the new President of Europe. After all, the Queen is now a citizen of the EU.
Did you know that the Commission has appointed 7 ex communists, including Mr Barroso, the current Commission Chairman? Is Mrs Merkel another? She came from East Germany.
Did you know that the terms of the Lisbon Treaty introduced the Death Penalty in certain circumstances? The terms are tucked away in an obscure place ( a footnote attached to a footnote) and have not yet been noticed by the Labour or Liberal Parties who voted for it.
Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet dissident who spent 12 years in a gulag has said; “Remember, I have lived your future and it does not work”. We have been warned. We are now living in a totalitarian regime.
What is a wasted vote? A wasted vote is a vote for a party with whose policies you do not agree . Anyone who does not wish to be part of the EU and votes for any of the three main parties is wasting their vote. For those who do want to be governed by the EU it does not matter which party they vote for as each of those parties will remain in the EU.
If a Europhile tells you that three million jobs in Britain depend on the EU just remind them that four million jobs in Europe depend on exports to Great Britain.
80% of Britain’s trade is generated internally with 20% being exports and imports. Of this 20%, about 9% is with countries in the EU and the rest is with the rest of the world. As Britain has a large trade deficit with the EU it is hardly likely that trade would suffer if we left the EU. They need us more than we need them.[/spoiler]
as far as i'm concerned (and if all brits knew whats really going on they would say the same thing), the EU can KMA!!!
Re: questions for pops :)
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:06 pm
by agapooka
[KMA]Avenger wrote:8. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.
According to the IMF and World Bank 2008 data, Luxembourg has +53% and +35% more GDP per capita, respectively, than Norway, which is the next European country listed after Luxembourg. Ireland falls between Norway and Switzerland in the World Bank report, but right after Switzerland in the IMF report.
There is a variance of less than 19% in the GDP per capita between the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the UK, Finland, Germany and France. The order given is the order in which they scored in the IMF report.
There is possibly a case of reversal of causality in the assertion that the two countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are not EU members, thereby inferring that EU membership is the cause. While this is not necessarily false, one must also acknowledge the fact that a richer country may be less motivated to share with comparatively poorer countries. In other words, some richer countries chose to stay out of the EU to begin with and this alone could have caused the difference between the GDPs per capita of most EU nations compared to that of the nations who chose to stay out due to their relative wealth.
This may be the case with Norway and Switzerland. As for Luxembourg, it appears to have benefited a lot from the existence of the EU, considering the EU facilities located there and the fact that it was such a small country to begin with. Its multilingual nature has helped it benefit most from the existence of the EU and it is indeed one of the founding members and one of its communities is the namesake for the shared border known as the Schengen area.
That said, I have not shared my OPINION of the EU. I have only compared statistics and interpreted them. My interpretation *could* be wrong. I'm not *from* Europe, although I have lived there for a year.
Agapooka
Don't think you would become another Switzerland lol. Games are already played.
!