Europe. Should we embrace it?

[raf_gti]

With the country seemingly now going down the toilet is now the time to open our arm's to Europe or should we (can we?) put up a fight until Britannia Rules again?

As hard as I find to accept I believe that this nation has had its day, it is time to move on from former glory and move on, we will never be succesful by living in the past. I for one would much prefer a modern, vibrant, wealthy country as part of Europe than become the sick man without.

<disclaimer>

I don't agree with a lot of current euro policy but the idea appeals.

[grumbledoak]

We should have stayed with the Commonwealth and told the EU to go fk itself; it is a completely undemocratic waste of time and money. Too late now, Bliar and Broon have signed us up, whether we wanted it or (more likely) not.

[10 Pence Short]

We need a smaller government that encourages personal responsibility, not a larger one that promotes only itself.

[Jimbeaux]

10 Pence Short said:

We need a smaller government that encourages personal responsibility, not a larger one that promotes only itself.

Spot on! Here as well.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 29th December 14:48

[raf_gti]

10 Pence Short said:

We need a smaller government that encourages personal responsibility, not a larger one that promotes only itself.

If you include the civil service as a whole that would be a LOT of jobs to get rid off!

[10 Pence Short]

raf_gti said:

10 Pence Short said:

We need a smaller government that encourages personal responsibility, not a larger one that promotes only itself.

If you include the civil service as a whole that would be a LOT of jobs to get rid off!

You might be misinterpreting what I mean by 'smaller'. Having said that, if there was efficiency to be gained by removing unnecessary staff, good.

[DrTre]

Can see the virtues in the trade aspect, the social aspect just flies over my head. I love continental Europe and want each country to remain as unique as it can be instead of creating a homogenised state with yet another over-arching layer of bureaucracy that is inherently self serving to a degree and also just plain bloody expensive. MEPs? Feck off, that's what national governments should be working toward.

Let's face it, even the UK still has different laws/acts/bills being created for different areas that see no sign of abating so how in the hell "Europe" is expected to work without costing a fortune in wasted time, money and effort is difficult to determine.

Mind you, I realise that to have the former (trade) means a little of the latter (social) too, the euro for instance.

[Saddle bum]

Embrace Europe? YMBJ.

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

[raf_gti]

Saddle bum said:

Embrace Europe? YMBJ.

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

England didn't really do much until you had the Jocks, Taffs and Micks to help you out

[chris watton]

raf_gti said:

Saddle bum said:

Embrace Europe? YMBJ.

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

England didn't really do much until you had the Jocks, Taffs and Micks to help you out

I think the 'Jocks' came on board due to their unenviable track record of losing virtually every scrape (with foreign help..) with the English - and the English wern't doing too bad at all before unification.

(Disclaimer this is what I have read and studied when researching, I think unification did help Britain an awful lot - a lot of very brave Scots, Irish and Welsh certainly made their fair share of contributions in the 18/19th Century)

Edited by chris watton on Monday 29th December 15:14

[Ozzie Osmond]

Saddle bum said:

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

Except, of course, for that bit in 1066 when the French moved in, took over England and became the British. But we don't like to talk about that too much....

.... or the Vikings

The idea of the UK without Europe is pure fantasy. We embraced it a long time ago. Including 1973 and 1992.

[10 Pence Short]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Saddle bum said:

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

Except, of course, for that bit in 1066 when the French moved in, took over England and became the British. But we don't like to talk about that too much....

.... or the Vikings

The idea of the UK without Europe is pure fantasy. We embraced it a long time ago. Including 1973 and 1992.

Aye. Look how we all pulled together in 1914 and 1939.

[Simpo Two]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The idea of the UK without Europe is pure fantasy. We embraced it a long time ago. Including 1973 and 1992.

You're omitting the *teensy* difference between TRADING with Europe and being OWNED by Europe.

As National Pride seems to be akin to paedophilia, if we're going to quit and sell out to anyone (mind you Woolworths couldn't find a buyer and the UK has much bigger debts) I would far rather be a state of the USA than a state of Europe. For one thing, we do at least share the same language and culture of the USA. We have nothing in common with Europe other than the fact they are geographically closer. The more we buddy up to foriegners, the more we'll get shafted. And already are being.

[raf_gti]

10 Pence Short said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Saddle bum said:

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

Except, of course, for that bit in 1066 when the French moved in, took over England and became the British. But we don't like to talk about that too much....

.... or the Vikings

The idea of the UK without Europe is pure fantasy. We embraced it a long time ago. Including 1973 and 1992.

Aye. Look how we all pulled together in 1914 and 1939.

I wonder how long until we can let the past rest.

Do le French and ze Germans bang on about the war as much?

[BigLepton]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Saddle bum said:

Europe was a far better place when Britain, England in particular, went on periodic walkabouts beating the st out of selected Euopean countries.

Except, of course, for that bit in 1066 when the French moved in, took over England and became the British. But we don't like to talk about that too much....

.... or the Vikings

The idea of the UK without Europe is pure fantasy. We embraced it a long time ago. Including 1973 and 1992.

Except for the little fact that those 'French' who you say moved in in 1066 weren't French, they were Vikings who had a few decades earlier told the French 'we're having this bit of France OK?' and the French could do nothing about it. It is these 'Norsemen' or 'Normans' who invaded in 1066 from Normandy and who had a lot more in common with the anglo-saxons than the francs. . . . . .

As for a UK without an EU, yeah, how on earth would we survive being several hundred billion pounds better off. . . . . .

[BigLepton]

raf_gti said:

Do le French and ze Germans bang on about the war as much?

No, because one was liberated by Britain and the other conquered by Britain. Had the Germans won, you would still hear them banging on about it because like them, you would speak german.

[raf_gti]

BigLepton said:

raf_gti said:

Do le French and ze Germans bang on about the war as much?

No, because one was liberated by Britain and the other conquered by Britain. Had the Germans won, you would still hear them banging on about it because like them, you would speak german.

But we don't so much gloat about being victorious as sit there in the corner with a chip on our shoulders.

[odyssey2200]

If I were PM tomorrow my first priority would be to get us out of the EU.

We were supposed to have a Common Market for trade purposes not the hugely expensive, useless and self serving old boys club that is the EU.

[BigLepton]

raf_gti said:

BigLepton said:

raf_gti said:

Do le French and ze Germans bang on about the war as much?

No, because one was liberated by Britain and the other conquered by Britain. Had the Germans won, you would still hear them banging on about it because like them, you would speak german.

But we don't so much gloat about being victorious as sit there in the corner with a chip on our shoulders.

What's this 'we' business. Speak for yourself.

[Simpo Two]

raf_gti said:

BigLepton said:

raf_gti said:

Do le French and ze Germans bang on about the war as much?

No, because one was liberated by Britain and the other conquered by Britain. Had the Germans won, you would still hear them banging on about it because like them, you would speak german.

But we don't so much gloat about being victorious as sit there in the corner with a chip on our shoulders.

Part of the British way is understatement.

Two groups of people are screwed up over British victories (not that we've had many recently). One of course is those who lost. The other is the pseudo-left intellectuals who now dictate UK policy, and who frequently are not of these shores or seem to have some foreign sympathies.