Should Britain become a full member of the eu.

[siare]

I think that a strong united eu including britain as long aas britain had controllover its own laws and desicions because a powerfull euorpe would be able to compete with us and china in the future what are your views.

[Pawn Power]

i think the workers of Britain and all of the world including china and the US should unit for COMMUNISM!!!!!!!!!!

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

[monkeydust]

If you're asking whether or not we should sign up to the EU constitution, then I say we should.

If you mean a "full" EU, as a Federal state, then that's another issue altogether.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yeh.

It's a pretty vague question.

Britain is in the EU. So your question is already answered.

If you mean the constitution and the Euro, then I think no.

Joining the constitution will only be followed by membership of the Euro as the laws and legalities of the constitution will force us into it. And it is the Euro that I especially do not want to join.

At this moment and for the next 4 years at least, economically, it would be farcical to join the Euro. With the volatility of the pound against the Euro, joining the currency would hit the British economy so hard that the government will not know what to do. Britain's economy is so out of step with the other major European countries as well as the European economy as a whole that it would take at least a decade for it to adjust and "fit in" with the rest of Europe.

And personally, I don't want to be contributing to some person in Italy's pension with the current world economy as it is.

Politically, all it will serve to do is create another capitalist superstate, further inhibiting the power of the people and crushing Europe under bureaucratic, American-style Western democracy. This will not only inhibit the power of the peoples of Europe but will also lead to further exploitation of the impoverished peoples of Central and South America and Africa where superstate neocolonialism wil surely grow.

A big NO from me I'm afraid.

[monkeydust]

At this moment and for the next 4 years at least, economically, it would be farcical to join the Euro. With the volatility of the pound against the Euro, joining the currency would hit the British economy so hard that the government will not know what to do. Britain's economy is so out of step with the other major European countries as well as the European economy as a whole that it would take at least a decade for it to adjust and "fit in" with the rest of Europe.


Couldn't agree more, it's pleasing to know that some people here see the Euro debate for what it really is: An economic, not a political debate.


Joining the constitution will only be followed by membership of the Euro as the laws and legalities of the constitution will force us into it.

No it won't, we've still got the opt-out negotiated at Maastricht. Which kind of laws/legalities do you believe will force us into it?


And personally, I don't want to be contributing to some person in Italy's pension with the current world economy as it is.


You won't be.


Politically, all it will serve to do is create another capitalist superstate, further inhibiting the power of the people and crushing Europe under bureaucratic, American-style Western democracy. This will not only inhibit the power of the peoples of Europe but will also lead to further exploitation of the impoverished peoples of Central and South America and Africa where superstate neocolonialism wil surely grow.


Let's take your first statement: "Politically, all it will serve to do is create another capitalist superstate, further inhibiting the power of the people and crushing Europe under bureaucratic, American-style Western democracy"

The EU is already over-bureaucratic and worryingly undemocratic, to opt out of the constitution is to allow this framework to continue. Remember that the current organisational structure of the EU was originally geared towards dealing with 6 states, certainly this structure has had some reform, but not an overhaul. The whole point of the constitution is to "streamline" the organisation and structure of the Union, so that it can effectively operate with 25 members.

This will not only inhibit the power of the peoples of Europe but will also lead to further exploitation of the impoverished peoples of Central and South America and Africa where superstate neocolonialism wil surely grow.


Why would this be so? I certainly don't believe it will be the case.

[T_SP]

No we should withdraw from this Capitalist hellhole asap!

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It is pleasing indeed to have a real debate from monkeydust.

As for the post after his, I wish people didn't bother. It's just wasting space on my screen and making my computer take more time to load.

Anyway, back to the real debate. In your first statment, monkeydust, did you mean to write "couldnt agree"? Or were you meant to put a "more" on the end? It just seems quite a strange statement without the "more" so I thought maybe there was a typo.

True, the Maastricht Treaty does allow us to opt-out of the currency, but think of the difficulties that Britain will have to undergo if it is completely in-line and linked to the whole of Europe except for with the currency and economy. Once it gets to that stage, it would probably save a lot of mess to join the Euro as this would speed up Britain's economy and integration with Europe. Which is why I say no to the constitution in the first place.

As for your comment about the pensions. In theory, the Amsterdam Treaty bans such activity [us paying peoples pensions in Italy or Germany]. However, I recently read that a certain think-tank (I forget the name) calculated that unfunded pension liabilities are 139% of the GDP in Germany and 113% in Italy. Compare this to just 19% in Britain, and we have a problem. This seriously casts a huge doubt on the long term sustainability of these countries' finances. Thus, if the Italian economy, which is completely burdened with debt, is in danger of collapsing, which it is, then other Euro countries will be forced to help out to ensure the stability of the whole of "Euroland".

Obviously, there wouldn't be a direct transfer from Britain to Italy, I know that. But the Euro itself will inevitably lead to a large central budget administered by Brussels which we will have to pay into. If the Italians were to come into the need which it seems they may, we would be paying them out of it.

Thus, we would have to be paying pensions for their people. Now I am all for internationalism, but that is ridiculous.


The EU is already over-bureaucratic and worryingly undemocratic, to opt out of the constitution is to allow this framework to continue.

And you suggest opting in will not allow it to? Surely Britain's bureacracy will slip right into the mould? Nothing will change with the introduction of Britain.


Why would this be so? I certainly don't believe it will be the case.
I meant this to follow from the previous point. I said if Europe becomes an American-style bureacracy then this will happen. And if you ask why still, then the answer is clear; look at how America does it. Superpowers exploit the poorer peoples of the world by definition. If the "United States of Europe" were to exist as a supoerpower, then it would therefore serve to exploit the masses of people in poverty.

[socialistfuture]

:lol:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Why have you posted that?

[socialistfuture]

i think its a rather amusing picture,also it shows how a ideologies change... labour turned into what thatcher was - blair has continued her policies.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And the relevance of it to this thread?

[monkeydust]

Anyway, back to the real debate. In your first statment, monkeydust, did you mean to write "couldnt agree"? Or were you meant to put a "more" on the end? It just seems quite a strange statement without the "more" so I thought maybe there was a typo.


It was a typo, and I've corrected it. Sorry about that one. ;)


True, the Maastricht Treaty does allow us to opt-out of the currency, but think of the difficulties that Britain will have to undergo if it is completely in-line and linked to the whole of Europe except for with the currency and economy. Once it gets to that stage, it would probably save a lot of mess to join the Euro as this would speed up Britain's economy and integration with Europe. Which is why I say no to the constitution in the first place.


What 'difficulties' are you speaking of? I can see none. The Exchange rate mechanism avoids most potential troubles in this area.

Besides the point, the constitution does not make Britain, or for that matter any other country "completely in-line" with Europe. Britain retainins her vetoes on key areas such as defence, taxation and foreign policy.

The more Pro-European nations, notably France and Germany know that they will not be able to convert many of the former Eastern-bloc countries to the Euro any time soon (if indeed they want to). Your premise that Britian will be forced to adopt the Euro as a result of the constitution would have to (for consistency of argument) apply to such Eastern states as well.

They don't have to go Euro, and neither does Britain.


Thus, we would have to be paying pensions for their people. Now I am all for internationalism, but that is ridiculous.


I'm aware of a "cohesion fund", outlined at Maastricht, by which common EU money is granted to deprivated areas, such as South Wales and Northern Portugal. So in some ways you're right in your assumption that "British money" is given to other European powers.

What you haven't explained is how the constitution will extend this. If anything it will reduce wasted "British money" by streamlining structural organisation. Moreover, how did you reach the conclusion that a "no" to the constitution will reduce the extent to which Britian's money goes elsewhere (in Europe).

The only forseeable and realistic solution to your concerns is to pull out of the EU altogether. Such an action would have catostrophic effects for the people of Britian; especially the working classes.


And you suggest opting in will not allow it to? Surely Britain's bureacracy will slip right into the mould? Nothing will change with the introduction of Britain.


Well, no. But the constitution does go some way to cutting down bureaucracy and increasing democracy (admittedly not far enough). Again, the only realisitic method to solve this problem for the UK would be to pull out altogether.


I meant this to follow from the previous point. I said if Europe becomes an American-style bureacracy then this will happen. And if you ask why still, then the answer is clear; look at how America does it. Superpowers exploit the poorer peoples of the world by definition. If the "United States of Europe" were to exist as a supoerpower, then it would therefore serve to exploit the masses of people in poverty

I agree completely, but your arguement rests on the basis that the constitution will bring about a Federal state: It will not.

The EU has always explicitly worked on a basis of subsidiarity (that decisisons are taken at the lowest level practically possible). Moreover, the introuction of the 10 Eastern European states will make notions of a Federal state even more unrealistic. Do you think that such states will allow themselves to be centrally controlled by a larger authority again?




Like you, I have reservations about the constitution. In particular it does not go very far in solving the "democratic deficit", perhaps even worsening the issue by making the current structure "set in stone". It would be fair to say that I do not like the constitution.

However, when considering which way to vote on such issues, one has to weigh up the possible consequences of each outcome pragmatically. I have come to the conclusion that a "no" vote will have two possible results:

A:The constitution is not signed. The EU continues to operate inefficinently; unable to manage twenty-five states with a structure (in the main) designed for six.

B:Brtiain pulls out of the EU altogether. The reuslting lapse in trade will bring about unemployment for many. European isolation may cause Britian to be increasingly dominated by the U.S's influence.


In my opinion, a "yes" vote is the "lesser of two evils". I certainly do not not worship the constituion, but I believe that the signing of it is the more favourable of two quite undesirable options.

Do you agree?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I certainly see your point that it would be the "lesser of two evils". However I'm always weary of that infamous phrase as it was used by Italians across the political specturm in their decision to side with Mussolini's extremism rather than the left-wing extreme due to Fascism being the "lesser" of the two "evils".

Anyway, I know that sounds like I'm completely straying from the point, but what I'm trying to get at is the question of is it possible to forsee how the two evils will turn out.

Yes, I would be completely against increased integration and connection with America. However, is this not merely a prediction? We KNOW what a "Yes" would lead to, but we do not know what a "No" would lead to. This is not supporting my argument much I know, but I'm just trying to get at my point.


What you haven't explained is how the constitution will extend this.
Maybe I didn't explain correctly. I meant that because I feel joining the constitution will lead to joining the currency, then this would happen.

I'm afraid my knowledge on the topic is limited to what I have said already as well as the inflation rate problems which I think everyone is in agreeance with that a fixed rate isn't good, so I'm not sure there is point posting about that.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem about this whole situation is that people probably know a lot less than even you and I and they are being asked to vote. It's a scary situation.

[monkeydust]

Yes, I would be completely against increased integration and connection with America. However, is this not merely a prediction? We KNOW what a "Yes" would lead to, but we do not know what a "No" would lead to.

We don't know for sure what the result of either of the two decisions will be. It might be the case that the result of a "no" vote is more ambiguous than a "yes", though we cannot, with 100% certainty be sure of what will happen either way.

I feel, however, that as far as I can see, the result of a "no" vote will be much worse than a "yes". For reasons I hae outlined above.


Maybe I didn't explain correctly. I meant that because I feel joining the constitution will lead to joining the currency, then this would happen.


Fair enough, but I dispute the notion that signing the currency will immediately oblige Britain to join the Euro.


Unfortunately, the biggest problem about this whole situation is that people probably know a lot less than even you and I and they are being asked to vote. It's a scary situation.

Quite right.

There's certainly a case to be made for a "no" vote. The case that the majority of Eurosceptics make, however, is fundamentally shite. Usually it revolves around a number of misconceptions, such as:

-France and Germany want to take over the UK.
-Adoption of the Euro will result in a loss of sovereignty for the UK.
-If Britain pulls out she will suffer no negative conseuqences.
-Signing the constitution will result in a loss of power for Britain in Europe (in fact the opposite is true).
-The constitution will result in a "United states of Europe".

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I agree with your last points.

However although I don't believe signing the constitution is signing in agreeance for a "United States Of Europe", I do believe that it will be signing one of the stepping stones towards it.

[T_SP]

You don't agree then oh great one! Sorry to waste your precious time!!
Oh but I see you are part of the elitist CC so you must have something important to say Please forgive me! Oh no, I have made this page take even longer to download now!!!

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 10:31 PM
You don't agree then oh great one! Sorry to waste your precious time!!
Oh but I see you are part of the elitist CC so you must have something important to say Please forgive me! Oh no, I have made this page take even longer to download now!!!
I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up my arse.....

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 10:31 PM
You don't agree then oh great one! Sorry to waste your precious time!!
Oh but I see you are part of the elitist CC so you must have something important to say Please forgive me! Oh no, I have made this page take even longer to download now!!!
What the hell are you going on about?

Firstly, I have no idea what a CC is.

Secondly, trying to say that a post, which makes complete sense, doesn't make sense actually makes your post not make sense and thus makes you seem like an absolute idiot.

As I said, I agreed with all of monkeydusts points except the last one. That's acutally the most efficient and accurate way to write what I wanted to.

The other way to express my point i.e. the way you are suggesting therefore is thus:

I agree with the first of your last points. I also agree with the second of your last points. I am also in agreeance with the third of your last points and do concur with the penultimate one of your last points. However I do not agree with the fifth point completely as although, like you, I don't believe it will create a United Staes of Europe, I do think it is a stepping stone"

You see how silly my post would've sounded if I'd written it like you seem to think it should've been written.

Now think about what you've said, then think about something constructive to add to this argument. If you can't then go back to name-calling posts elsewhere.

[Guerrilla22]

I'm not from the UK, first off, but I don't think full mebership in the EU is in the best interest of the UK. All the EU is about is promoting neoliberal policies throughout all of Europe, the EU pushes all of it's members into massive deregulating and consolidating companies across Europe in the name of "free trade".