EU..... Bah Humbug

Great Debates
1

I’m a student studying business… quite badly i might add. Anyway during a lecture last year my lecturer raised the issue of the EU… I had to argue agaianst it. Before i start i am not racist or xenophobic, and i would like to say sorry about the spelling.

To my piont, why does the Uk bother about the EU, we are shafted on fishing rights, ship building (my home town, sunderland, used to be the largest ship building town in the world) European army, farming, and just general stuff really.
Would it be possible to turn the commonwealth into a political and trade bloc to be recconed with??

Whereas Europe is very Clique with france and germany rooling the roost, the commonwealth is quite pleasant in general anyway. In times of crisis the CW has always rallied around britain and helped us. I think a strong CW with military political and trade links complete with closer ties to north america would be a better system.

Europe could just Bicker and argue without the Billions we pour into the economy.

2

Perhaps you could try pasting your post into word beforehand in order to check the spelling and capitalisation.

I’m absolutely not a Europhile, but have you managed to convince yourself that the EU does no good at all?

Why would we need to assemble a political bloc in order to trade with the commonwealth?

3

I am on a university computer as i said sorry about the spelling. In the big scheme of global power the large political blocs are the only entities that are listened too… a large trade body with conflicting views will fall apart. I am not talking about a new empire but some political guide would be needed. Can you tell me what good The EU does??

4

Well, some people might argue that the EU has been directly responsible for the raising of living standards in countries such as Portugal, Spain, Ireland, has facilitated (maintained?) peace in Western Europe since WWII, has gained rights for individuals through legislation that some may not have had from their own governments, has legislated on pollution and the environment across borders rather than just within, has allowed the free movement of workers throughout the EU etc etc

These are not necessarily my views.

5

It lets us travel to member countries with a minimum of fuss? At least I hope it does, I’m going to Paris next week.

I’m sure Sparc will come along soon and fill you in with the benefits. He seems to be one of the most knowledgeable posters on this subject.

6

Living standards in those countries would probably have improved by now anyway… spain improved once the got that whole democracy thing sorted. Nothing like a dictator to muck up a country. I will go for the travel thing… but other than that it had desimated the heavy industries in this country these industries have moved to developing countries where heath and safety is a joke so thats not really a good thing. On the peace front. The only reason peace has endured is there has been no Napoleon or Hitler or any person to start trouble as no EU countries have the resources for large scale wars

7

How are you deciding which events are down to the EU, and which are not?

A lack of clear critical thinking on the subjects over which the EU has influence is one of the greatest problems faced by both Europhiles and Eurosceptics.

Your ‘arguments’ seem to encapsulate that lack of clarity.

8

I can’t believe I forgot to add

“What have the Romans ever done for us?”

:wink:

9

One legitimate aspect of the EU is needing to stay competitive on the world market. When slugging it out with the U.S. or with Japan, which owns most of the largest banks in the world, or with up-and-coming China, with a dirt cheap labor force of a billion people, you need every edge: getting rid of losses from currency exchange, tariffs, travel restrictions, inefficient distribution of labor and resources. Every one of those things makes your competition just that little bit harder to catch up with.

Note that living standard isn’t the only metric. If Europe doesn’t stay competitive – regardless of the cost – in the long term things will be much worse.

Other folks know shipping better than I, but very probably shipping in Sunderland started faltering around the same time as the rest of British shipping – and for similar reasons. Japan and then Korea took your business away. Cheaper labor, among other things. After WWII there were a huge number of cargo ships that were no longer needed for the war effort. Many of those, for example the Liberty Ships, continued to be used for years by private owners. Result? Little need for new ships. By the time demand picked up again, many shipyards were closed or suffering.

10

There’s no doubt that the primary motivation behind the establishment of the EU has been the prevention of a major war in Europe, and in this respect it has succeeded. It’s silly to suggest that European countries don’t have the resources to fight major wars, or that major wars only happen as the result of figures like Napoleon or Hitler. Nobody who has thought for more than five minutes about the history of modern Europe would seriously put forward these ideas.

On the economic front, the Spanish example in fact completely undermines the point which Squirebob is trying to make. Franco dies, if I recall correctly, in 1975; Free elections are held in 1977; Spain accedes to the EU in 1986. Annual average GDP growth in Spain from 1975 to 1985: 1.6%. From 1985 to 1990: 4.5%

Is this a statistical freak involving Spain? No. Portugal also acceeded in 1986. Annual growth in GDP from 1975-1985: 3%. From 1985 to 1990: 5.5%

Did their accession coincide with a period of global growth? Perhaps, but not to that extent. Annual GDP growth in the EU as a whole 1975-1985: 2.3%; 1985-1990 3.2%. And in the US GDP figures fell (from 3.4% to 3.2%) between the same two periods.

And I’m not clear why Squirebob feels that the migration of heavy industry to developing countries is a consequence of EU membership. Can he point to developed countries which are not members of the EU and which have not suffered from this phenomenon? My own view is that this is a consequence of (a) high income levels in developed countries, (b) improved education and training in developing countries, © the reduction of trade barriers as between developing and developed countries and (d) improvements in transport and communications. I can’t see how staying out of the EU would protect anyone from the consequences of these factors (except possibly by reducing GDP, and therefore depressing wage rates, and therefore making labour more competitive, but presumably nobody thinks this is a strategy to be commended).

11

Would the major Commonwealth countries want to join such a bloc? Even if they did, what’s to stop them ganging up against the UK? For some, that’s already the main advantage of Commonwealth membership.

12

Common Heavy Industry Policy?
Hey, it works for farmers (protects them from markets and costs lots), and it’s got a cool abbreviation too!
Oops, am I showing my true colours…

13

The Europhobes will point out the desolation of UK heavy industries and over-regulation as being the bad points to the EU.

UK heavy industry has been in decline for decades, and long before we were heavily involved in the Common Market.

A report on the UK steel industry recommended a serious rationalisation that meant most sites would be closed and the remainder located at certain places such as Port Talbot with access to the sea to make handling of raw materials easier. That same report showed how multi-trade workers could mae the industry much more efficient, provided new plant was invested in.That report also made mention of the likely consequencies of not taking this course, that the UK would lose its position as a leading producer of steel, and the knock on effect this would have on industries such as shipbuilding, mining, and the railroads, and the likely outcome for communities for those other industires that had to compete in worldwide markets with more efficient producers.

That report came out in 1907.

Far from acting upon those recommendations, the industry was spread in ever more remote locations, such as Ravenscraig to keep communities employed.
The industry became so under invested, and overpriced that it was nationalised just to keep it going, and that failed.

We are now left with an industry which is almost the very model of what was proposed in 1907, the locations of the major plants are startlingly similar, and it is one of the most efficient in the world.Steel tariffs in competitor nations are the only thing holding it back, and the worst offender is Mr Bush.

I do not see how you can blame the EU for screwing up the steel industry in the UK, when we had 60 years or so to do it for ourselves, safe in the knowledge of what we should have done.

You could make similar assertions about much of UK heavy industry, under-investement, poor management, bad industrial relations, and overpriced products to captive markets.

These are not the reponsibility of the EU, but are instead rightfully laid at the feet of our short term investment strategies and maximisation of profit ratios coupled with a reluctance to take risk, and invest in research and training.

As for farming, why the hell should we in the UK pay higher taxes and higher prices in the shops to subsidise farmers ?
All this does is lead to higher wage demands and places the burden upon truly viable industries.

It is not the fault of the EU that we pay the highest prices for virtually every man-made product in Europe, look at cars, these cost anything up to 60% more for exactly the same model, yet the vehicle may well be made in a UK factory, same goes for CD’s, jeans, perfumes, and pretty much everything else.

The reason we pay more is that multinational companies can get away with it, the EU is slowly tightening up on the way that manufacturers ration a product to certain markets where the aim is to keep prices high.

It is a matter of EU legend that the UK is also called ‘treasure island’ by manufacturers and importers, because they know they can control the markets to keep pirces artificially high.

Nation states are no longer able to bring effective controls on such non-centralised companies, the result is a search for a governmental system that can cope with that.
Companies may not be too worried about losing one market in the UK, so they continue their restrictive trade policies, but to lose an entire region is a serious issue.
The result is that even car manufacturers are slowly bringing UK prices toward the EU norm, and the only thing that is making this happen is a greater awareness of other EU nation markets by the consumer, and this has been enabled by EU legislation.
UK banks still have the highest interest rates in Europe, which they exploit to the full.
This is a serious drag on our industrial competitiveness, German companies can borrow and invest at much better rates that we can, remember that R & D is an investment, and as a result they can become more efficient producers.

If we had the same currency this disparity would not arise, and the price of products across the whole of Europe would be transparent to all consumers here.

There would be no need to worry about £/EU currency variations, making for a more stable and certain investment climate.

It would be far harder for short term investment markets to hit our currency and destroy our economic policy.

There are a whole host of reason why we would be better off with closer ties to the EU …but…the one that absolutely overides everthing…

We in the UK would have a written constitution guarunteeing our rights as citizens and not subjects, already we have acquired rights to information held about us, health and safety legislation has be tightened up considerably, and we now have a body to which we can make legal representations when we feel that we have suffered detriment or injury due to the actions of our own government.