Should the UK leave the EU?

[SHOOTEMUP]

The big question is WHY ? What's so important to the powers that be that we end up as a blip in Europe. Are we such a threat as a nation that they want us engulfed, swamped or just submerged by foreigners? It's as if they want us over run, as if they (our own and the Eu's politicians) are afraid we will stand up and fight or just revolt. Perhaps they realise that slowly, slowly will not be noticed until there's more pro EU than anti EU (read benefit scroungers and immigrants) in the country.

 

It's not just money, MP's and top ranking public service already get more than they can spend, there's something we don't know. They, the government and the EU have some reason to want us as a small, insignificant part of the EU, otherwise the EU would have just discarded us years ago. It would have been so simple for them to just not trade with us, to just ignore us. There's something far more sinister afoot.

There's something going to happen in Europe and they don't want us as independents stirring it up when it does.

 

And no, it's not just another conspiracy theory.

 

I Totally agree with you, why has nobody who supports our integration further into the EU ever told us of the "BENEFITS" to us.

I can tell you why because there are non

[Nial]

I Totally agree with you, why has nobody who supports our integration further into the EU ever told us of the "BENEFITS" to us.

I can tell you why because there are non

 

 

There are some benefits, if you read that paper 'A cost too far' that I keep posting the link to it does

outline the benefite. The conclusion is that we're £40billion/year worse off for membership though.

 

The only reason I can see that politicians aren't more anti-EU is that they see it as a career

progression path.

 

Even if you're a sucessful PM there's no happy way out, but if you can 'progress' to the

EU and become a big fish there......

 

?

 

Nial.

[alexr]

There are some benefits, if you read that paper 'A cost too far' that I keep posting the link to it does

outline the benefite. The conclusion is that we're £40billion/year worse off for membership though.

 

The only reason I can see that politicians aren't more anti-EU is that they see it as a career

progression path.

 

Even if you're a sucessful PM there's no happy way out, but if you can 'progress' to the

EU and become a big fish there......

 

?

 

Nial.

 

i had never really considered that aspect of it. That would also explain why they are not wanting to integrate further. Why would they wish to reduce their own power by reducing that of the westminster parliament.

 

Here is a benefit they failed to tell us about and one that sadly I suspect we have now missed. I have a £200,000 pound mortgage on my house and a further £100.000 on the business property. These cost me a total of £2200 a month at the moment give or take. If we had been in the Euro. I would have had a 25 year fixed term mortgage at 2% interest which would have cost me about £1200 a month. A saving over the life of the mortgage of some £ 300,000. Money that would have been used to expand the practice, employ new staff and create more taxable income with in the UK. But there we go.

 

To the average man with a mortgage in the UK that would have meant about £500 a month more in your pocket rather than in the quaffers of the banks. How does the Euro look now then ?

Edited April 23, 2010 by alexr

[Nial]

If we had been in the Euro. I would have had a 25 year fixed term mortgage at 2% interest which would have cost me about £1200 a month.

 

 

I don't understand the economics enough to comment fully, but isn't the problem that such a low

interest rate isn't actually the best thing for the economy long term? Controlling it is one

of the things that allows the government to 'manage' the economy.

 

Having to keep it as low as 2% has meant that some European countries economies have

gone to pot, Greece is a basket case that it having to be bailed out by France and

Germany (despite the EU rules).

 

It's all very well temporarily having a lower mortgage with more money in your pocket,

but if you lose your job (and the public sector in Ireland's had to be slashed recently)

then that won't be of much benefit.

 

A 2% interest rate also doesn't encourage saving and doesn't help pensions/annuities.

 

?

 

Nial.

[alexr]

Very true on all counts , but the low interest rates has not adversely effected German or French interests and manufacturing to the same extent as the high interest rates have the UK . Also in reality interest rates are a poor , and some might say unimaginative, way to control the money supply. It has historically become the favored way to do it in the UK because of the fiasco seen in the late 70's when the government tried to limit pay increases to less than 10 %. The idea is that you effectively control the amount of money in peoples pockets by increasing their living expenses rather than limiting their income. As a public sector worker unfortunately you tend to be hit by a double whammy where they both limit your pay and increase your expenses. There are plenty of other ways to limit the money supply but some of them may be seen as unpopular politically and some may be seen as going against the idea of free market forces. But I think you might have to consider whether or not the application of popular political measures and the forces of a free market economy are not at least in part to blaim for the current mess we are in ?

[Vipa]

i had never really considered that aspect of it. That would also explain why they are not wanting to integrate further. Why would they wish to reduce their own power by reducing that of the westminster parliament.

 

Here is a benefit they failed to tell us about and one that sadly I suspect we have now missed. I have a £200,000 pound mortgage on my house and a further £100.000 on the business property. These cost me a total of £2200 a month at the moment give or take. If we had been in the Euro. I would have had a 25 year fixed term mortgage at 2% interest which would have cost me about £1200 a month. A saving over the life of the mortgage of some £ 300,000. Money that would have been used to expand the practice, employ new staff and create more taxable income with in the UK. But there we go.

 

To the average man with a mortgage in the UK that would have meant about £500 a month more in your pocket rather than in the quaffers of the banks. How does the Euro look now then ?

 

Where did you get your data from Alex?

 

Euro mortgages, just like all other foreign currency mortgages have been available for years. They were quite popular in the mid 90's (foreign currency mortgages,) we sold quite a few but they fell out of favour when people realised that saving a few quid on the interest was far outweighed by the risk of fluctuating exchange rates.

 

You could have raised finance on your property from one of the big European banks and enjoyed their rates, there's nothing statating you can only have a uk mortgage on a UK property, the same is true the other way round. European property can be funded from anywhere in europe.

 

The ECB base rate was lower than the UK base rate before the recession but that is now not the case. Even when european rates were lower it is doubtful that you would have got such a cheap fix over such a long period. Just like here in the UK, the rates applied to fixes bear little relation to the bank base rate, they are driven by the 'swap rates' i.e. the rates at which banks are willing to lend money to each other and the perceived risk over the fixed period as determined by the lender's economists and analysts. The only rates that benefit (in direct terms) from low bank base rates are base rate trackers. The same is true in the rest of Europe.

 

If you look at historical data for LIBOR (London Inter Bank Offered Rate) and EURIBOR (European Inter Bank Offered Rate) which are the rates at which banks were moving money domestically and in the Eurozone, there wasn't much between them

Edited April 23, 2010 by Vipa

[alexr]

The original point with regard to the low fixed rate was told to me by a french GP in about 2001/2002 during a cultural exchange visit in Arbroath. And the reason that I did not actively pursue the idea at the time was not entirely to do with the possibilities of fluctuations in the exchange rate, but also to do with the fact he was a bit of an arrogant *** and I did not either trust him or entirely believe him, however there was also a discussion on a similar line some time later on the today program. It is historical and as I stated I think we may have missed the boat by this stage. I am assuming from your comments that that is now the case. What I was driving at however is that we are not told of the day to day advantages there may have been in being in the Euro zone or in engaging more fully in the EU. I am not a fan of change, and in the last 10 years my profession and the whole of the NHS has been subject to imposed political change. Despite every reservation I have ever had with regard to these changes, at least in the areas in which I have worked, the services now provided by primary care are better than they have ever been. When ever any change is proposed we have a tendency to inertia. We can on the whole only focus on the down side. Sad really, but human nature.

[Kent Militia]

The main reason the Germans didn't invade Switzerland is that the terrain would have made it costly, in terms of both money and men. Very mountainous terrain is not easy to fight in, win, hold etc and the german army was just not trained and equipped to do it. It was also not seen as strategically important. Switzerland, as a neutral player, was also very useful for other reasons which have been well publisised and movies made about over the years. It was nothing to do with them having a fierce and armed population!

 

I am pretty sure that if push came to shove the swiss could defend themselves very effectively. You are forgetting the swiss guard that is at the Vatican arguiably the most elite force in the world, makes the French foreign legion look like a bunch of schoolboys.

[al4x]

so if I get those right who want to join the Euro you want us to run on the same currency as the likes of Greece and allow them and whatever country we let into europe next drag us down with it. Cracking move looks like we're already paying to bail out Greece so why not add a few more we can afford it after all can't we

 

oh and Alex I've about the same mortgage debt as you and its costing the princely sum of £350 a month at the moment so its probably got more to do with who you have your mortgage with than the europeans getting such a good deal

Edited April 23, 2010 by al4x

[Vipa]

I am pretty sure that if push came to shove the swiss could defend themselves very effectively. You are forgetting the swiss guard that is at the Vatican arguiably the most elite force in the world, makes the French foreign legion look like a bunch of schoolboys.

 

I'm intrigued... have you ever been to the vatican or Vatican City or are you basing your statement on what you saw in Angels and Demons. The Swiss guard are a show guard who dress in historical uniform and are the public face of Vatican security. I have no doubt they are quite capable of handling weapons and defending the city but an 'elite' fighting force! I don't think so, liken them to the Beafeaters at the tower of london!

 

When we go to Rome this summer, I will no doubt end up at the Vatican as it is one of my favourite places on the planet even though I am not a man of faith myself, it will be my 16th visit.

[jko]

I am pretty sure that if push came to shove the swiss could defend themselves very effectively. You are forgetting the swiss guard that is at the Vatican arguiably the most elite force in the world, makes the French foreign legion look like a bunch of schoolboys.

Looking up the size of the Swiss arms it states on Google it consists of one reiforced company!! hard to believe it could defend its country!!

[al4x]

I think its what he's read in the weekly fantasist militia magazine

[Vipa]

I am pretty sure that if push came to shove the swiss could defend themselves very effectively.

 

 

And I'm sure, at the height of his power, if Hitler had wanted Switzerland, he could have taken it, albeit at great cost. I have pinned some historical evidence as I haven't got time to type it myself... The question asked was 'why didn't Hitler attack Switzerland?"

 

A: He didn't have enough time to do it - invasion plans had already been dressed up - but first of all, regions like France, Belgium, etc. were conquered. Germany lost the Battle of Britain and turned directly upon Russia... it was easy going... they expected a fast victory... Hitler is cited with his remark "... we will hunt little Switzerland, when we are returning home..." - but they didn't return as they had expected.

 

On the other hand a first-strike easy going short-term invasion of Switzerland just in the first days of war wasn't possible, as swiss army moved up the border with several hundreds of thousands soldiers - the main clashes between both sides were air-to-air combats over swiss territory... with some surprising outcome for mighty german Luftwaffe. Bridges and tunnels in Switzerland connecting fachist Italy with nazi Germany were charged with explosive, letting the public know that they would blow everything up before the german Wehrmacht would get in (and german Pioneers were stoped just before reaching swiss airfields). Switzerland was declared neutral - with the most famous free radio station in Europe besides the BBC. But this could also be an advantage for allies and axis - spies could walk freely. And industrial or militar business was interesting... swiss industry has been blamed after the war to have sold products to the axis (and allies). Last thing I will mention is the "Reduced Switzerland" defence plan - assuming a withdraw of the firepower into the Alps and letting the invasiors take the flat areas easily... but not getting into montanious territory without beeing hurt. All this might have helped to deturn an early german invasion when war started... but it wouldn't have cancelled Hitler's plan if Germany had won in Russia... what they never did.

[George1990]

George,

What exactly is Britishness then? as far as I can tell most Scots, Welsh and a fair portion of Northern Irish don't want to be part of "Club Britain".

 

I don't really see how the currency we use has a significant bearing on our national identity.

 

And I'm certainly not obsessed with moving on; just think there are bigger fish to fry.

 

Are you implying that it's the EU's fault that we have as many mosques as we do? Give over, next you'll be telling me we're a Christian nation.

 

We are a Christian nation, with atheists thrown in.

 

If I had my way we'd all live like they did in Mary Poppins . Wouldn't see them using a bloody euro or see towel heads converting schools into mosques (although only 1 in 10 pupils in the school should be there)...

 

Not blaming it on being in the EU, just another thing blighting Blighty

[Kent Militia]

Looking up the size of the Swiss arms it states on Google it consists of one reiforced company!! hard to believe it could defend its country!!

 

Size does not equal might. I was talking about elite fighting unit, not the biggest army in the world.

 

If you want to talk biggest army in the world then the half a million Iranian guard and 11 million iranian paramilitary force is the one you probably weren't thinking of.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...umber_of_troops

[Kent Militia]

All this might have helped to deturn an early german invasion when war started... but it wouldn't have cancelled Hitler's plan if Germany had won in Russia... what they never did.

 

I'd have liked him to see take Switzerland "by blitzkrieg". I mean a million Russian soldiers couldn't take some god forsaken taliban fighters in the 80s and now Britain and America are having such a hard time, but yeah the German army wouldn't have a problem taking a country like Switzerland who would have been more heavily defended nation than some guys in caves.

[jko]

I think its what he's read in the weekly fantasist militia magazine

[berettaman]

I was and still am in favour of a common MARKET I was never given the chance to have a say in whether I wanted in on the present European super state ran by unelected officials who I as a voter had never heard of?and can seemingly make at will laws and legislation that affects my daily life

 

The sooner we ditch this European monster the better, and just think gleefully that very shortly another 70 million will have free and unfettered access to our benefit system,ask any Brit stuck in any European airport at this very moment if the benefit WE give is being reciprocated fully?

 

KW

 

Thats what you get for voting without thinking, its your fault now get us the hell out

[Zapp]

I'd have liked him to see take Switzerland "by blitzkrieg". I mean a million Russian soldiers couldn't take some god forsaken taliban fighters in the 80s and now Britain and America are having such a hard time, but yeah the German army wouldn't have a problem taking a country like Switzerland who would have been more heavily defended nation than some guys in caves.

 

The Soviet experience in Afghanistan was a proxy war (as, arguably, is our own situation), and as such cannot be directly compared with a hypothetical Switzerland v 3rd Reich invasion.

 

ZB

[Doc Holliday]

For those of you who voted "Yes" then to make your voice heard where it counts please free to sign the petition for Britain to have a fair, free referendum by following this link - http://www.ukip.org/petition/referendum-on-the-eu

[UKPoacher]

I'd have liked him to see take Switzerland "by blitzkrieg". I mean a million Russian soldiers couldn't take some god forsaken taliban fighters in the 80s and now Britain and America are having such a hard time, but yeah the German army wouldn't have a problem taking a country like Switzerland who would have been more heavily defended nation than some guys in caves.

 

If you read the book: 'Stalingrad' you might change your views on Russian soldiers. Forget what you read and see in cinemas about 'us' winning the war or 'the Yanks' winning the war, in reality it was Russia and the Russians who beat the Nazis.

[RC45]

If you read the book: 'Stalingrad' you might change your views on Russian soldiers. Forget what you read and see in cinemas about 'us' winning the war or 'the Yanks' winning the war, in reality it was Russia and the Russians who beat the Nazis.

Or maybe the Russian winter!

[UKPoacher]

Or maybe the Russian winter!

 

That's another myth. If the Germans hadn't faltered at Stalingrad they would have had it all sewn up. True the winter came early and that slowed them down, but it was tactical blunders and the 'backs to the wall, better to die fighting than die starving' attitude of the Russians that prevented the Germans from crossing the Volga and taking the country. The Germans flattened the city and that ironically made it easier to defend. That gave the Russians time to manufacture weapons in the unoccupied part of the country east of the Volga and use them to surround the unsuspecting army commanded by General Paul the following year. Then this was compounded by Hitler not accepting the situation and witholding reinforcements untilit was too late.

 

Read the book. It is fascinating.