Posted on 05/25/2016 12:10:20 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
More than 300 prominent historians, including Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson, are warning voters that if they choose to leave the European Union on 23 June they will condemn Britain to irrelevance.
In a letter to the Guardian, the academics and writers argue that the referendum offers a chance to underscore the “irreplaceable role” Britain has played, and should continue to play, in Europe’s history.
“As historians of Britain and of Europe, we believe that Britain has had in the past, and will have in the future, an irreplaceable role to play in Europe,” the letter says.
“On 23 June, we face a choice: to cast ourselves adrift, condemning ourselves to irrelevance and Europe to division and weakness; or to reaffirm our commitment to the EU and stiffen the cohesion of our continent in a dangerous world.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I’m glad somebody else understands this. Mostly I stay out of these threads.
I’m an ex-Brit. The stupidest thing Britain would have done in the last fifty years would be to leave the EU.
Having run a multi-country business, the lack of barriers to entry to the EU market are absolutely amazing - the harmonization of EU trade tax laws across countries with varying internal tax structures alone is worth it, let alone Schengen, a unified currency (on the continent, at least), and also labor migration.
The UK leaving the EU is insane. It would weaken both. As you mention, the France/Germany alliance is *only* balanced by the UK within Europe by the UK and its strong alliance with the US. Spain, Poland, and the rest of the also-rans can’t do anything about France and Germany, but the UK *can* and does.
My ex-country is a wonderful place, but, being an island nation, is also swayed by the siren song of “we can do this alone! it’ll be better!” without any conceptualization of the geopolitical, national or business ramifications.
The UN does give the US some benefits due to the veto rights, but yes, the % paid in is a relic of the 1970s and 80s and should be changed and based on either GDP or GNI/cap
About NATO — this is a cover for the US to have an “alliance”, that’s the benefit. However this should again be changed for the other countries to pull their weight and spend 2% of their budget on defence
re: defense spending as proportion of GDP in relation to NATO.
The UK does spend 2%+. Have you seen our fancy new aircraft carriers? They’re no Nimitz class, but they’re quite nifty.
France spends about the same.
"what good have the Romans ever done for us" -- ok, jokes aside, read my posts above about the UK getting entry to a vast market which they wouldn't get otherwise and also being part of a strong negotiating block to negotiate with the US, CHina, INdia etc.
Many Eurosceptics rage against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU. Nigel Farage, leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence party, has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — which adds up to more than £20bn a year.
But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims. A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 emphatically reduced the bill from the headline figure. London sent £13bn to Brussels last year. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget. That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a per cent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.
"Free" -- no, she kept colonies who did the bidding of the English parliament. That's why the Irish broke away first. No, England was not the leader of any free world.
"No other European country..." -- yes, from 1815 with the defeat of Napoleon until 1900 that was true, but prior to that, Louis XIV did have a good try and in the later 1800s, Germany pulled ahead -- the Germany productivity increase is what scared the English into an alliance with France and Russia to keep Germany down
and all without the help of those same European countries...and often in spite of them... -- uh... no -- the English colonies in NA got the impetus from Spanish discoveries. ANd the East India company was directly inspired by the Dutch -- and the Dutch were the ones who helped the English get started as a trading nation (until the Anglo-Dutch wars when the pupil decided to behead the master)
The English played the Germans against the French against the Russians against the Austrians etc. - they fought on the side of Moslems against Christians etc. -- all in the interests of BRitannia (of course the French did similar things)
the stupidest thing England has done in modern days is to align herself so thoroughly with countries who at one time could not hold a candle to her magnificence... - rot, they asked to join the EEC because in the 50s the British economy collapsed. They were being surpassed in productivity by Germany, France and even Italy. They joined because they had to and their presence in the EEC helped BOTH the EEC and the UK
And if they do vote for Brexit then your wish will be of England standing alone - Scotland and Wales will break off and North IReland would have to be set aside.
You would have the southern part of the island of britain as a separate nation, surrounded by the EU (Ireland, Scotland, maybe Wales) and dependend on the EU for the majority of its trade and on giant US for the rest. The EU would have no reason to open its financial markets to London and London would lose to competitors such as New York, Frankfurt, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong etc.
Furthermore, they will be as "sovereign" as Norway is -- where Norway still needs to follow EU rules if it wants to trade with the EU, which England WILL have to (as it's largest market and supplier)
There are a lot of folks who believe in the “New World Order” and the corporatist, statist alliance of big banks, big business and big government as embodied in the EU.
The slaves of the UK have nothing to lose but their chains.....
your statement is wrong -- as I pointed out in my post above. Right now London accounts for a giant chunk of England's economy -- if Scotland and Wales break off, then this will be even more dominant -- like a giant city state with colonies in Manchester and Newcastle.
And Brexit will make England more dependent on rules made by outsiders and with ZERO ability to influence those rules (Whereas now it can)
The EU is nothing but a network of the productive and the parasitic. They aren’t called PIGS for nothing: Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain.
Always looking for a bail-out of their disastrous socialist policies and lax attitudes toward work.
Leave it to the Guardian to champion income redistribution.
Soon as the UK is safely out of the EU, we can start working on finally getting the USA out of the UN.
UK needs to return Northern Ireland to the Irish.
The "productive and the parasitic" is a false analogy. At the most you can claim that Greece was this way, not Ireland and to a lesser extent, not Spain or Portugal or Italy.
and what makes you think that the socialist policies in northern Europe can't be as bad? Note that Greece is an outlier
Northern Ireland voted on that.
They said no.
True, but looking at the past can predict the future to quite an extent. The various fighting of the Diadocchi left the Greek Empires open to being conquered by Rome. And smaller powers have been shifted to irrelevance by larger agglomerations — Rome is a perfect example or Assyria
There’s hope :)
Oh, you have better numbers than me. I was looking at the world bank numbers.
Yes, many have low numbers - Germany especially - but NATO partners do spend. Who’d you rather have on your side in a fight? France or Spain? I know the jokes, but France can kick it. The Triomphant class SSBN is quite the boat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.