Has Britain Declined? [ENDS 20/06/2010]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But in 1922 we weren't the most powerful nation, the United States was.

---

Undoubtably so because this is when it really began to switch from land to economic powers. I was just saying something which i find quite interesting (but then again I am sad ;)) which is that the height of the British empire was actually in 1922.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

There's no doubting China and India's astronomical growth, with their huge population obviously they're going to develop at a far quicker rate than that of Britain.

---

I agree the population is a major factor but it doesn't detract from the fact that their economy is booming much faster than ours even in the industrial revolution. I find their willpower to compete simply astounding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

Thats sheer speculation. The EU began as the coal and steel community after the war. The idea was that with the larger countries of Europes resources for war pooled (coal and steel are the two key required elements) another war could not break out like either of the two world wars. This eventually evolved into a total economic and then part political union. Do you honestly think the French wanted to form a political union with the German people? The very same people who had organised the industrial slaughter of the French population just years earlier? I think not.

---

The intention was always a superstate and its well documented. Ted Heath admitted that when he signed up he knew he was signing upto a United States of Europe. The fact is that unification was done by the political class, not to prevent wars because all it does is create wars (world war II was created by the exact same thing the European Union is for, European Superstate) and Yugoslavia is a standing example to the fact that you cannot create a artificial state. The difference was that this was supposed to be unknown to the people and can be seen how Ted Heath lied to us blankly by pledging this was no union, only a community. In your piece you state how the French people would not stand for it and nor would Europe - well you are right and that is why we fought against those who wanted a European superstate - it also remains the prime reason why we have had no say on the matter and have never been told the truth about its intention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXJozMOQgXA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

I don't deny that Thatcher did had what had to be done for the British economy (although her methods were heavy handed but lets not get into that) but the de-regulation of the City of London was a colossal mistake. People began to take bigger risks, endangering the whole economy. It led to the temporary "Lawson Boom" but as usual with artificial booms a bust followed which nearly destroyed Majors 1992 electoral campaign (which he had to borrow money to win by the way). The long term effects were even more disastrous, it allowed the build up of unregulated toxic assets so when the recession bit, Britain was affected more than various other worldwide economies and which is one of the primary reasons our banking sector nearly collapsed.

---

That is how capitalism works, you cannot have an economy that never has a bust as Gordon Brown has claimed to have ended. If Thatcher had not de-regulated the economy then we would never have become a financial sector - the UK started recieving a large amount of regulation from the EU since the 1990s (one of the reasons Nigel Farage left business in the City) yet that did not stop the bust. The country of Switzerland on the other hand is very de-regulated and remains so, because it is not part of the European Union.

I believe the Swiss had less of a recession than ourselves and left recession earlier than the major regulated European economies - regulation doesnt make a blind bit of difference but only prohibits economic growth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

Undoubtably so because this is when it really began to switch from land to economic powers. I was just saying something which i find quite interesting (but then again I am sad ;)) which is that the height of the British empire was actually in 1922.

---

It's irrelevant when the height of the british empire was, my point is that the amount of decline hasn't been to a large extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The intention was always a superstate and its well documented. Ted Heath admitted that when he signed up he knew he was signing upto a United States of Europe. The fact is that unification was done by the political class, not to prevent wars because all it does is create wars (world war II was created by the exact same thing the European Union is for, European Superstate) and Yugoslavia is a standing example to the fact that you cannot create a artificial state. The difference was that this was supposed to be unknown to the people and can be seen how Ted Heath lied to us blankly by pledging this was no union, only a community. In your piece you state how the French people would not stand for it and nor would Europe - well you are right and that is why we fought against those who wanted a European superstate - it also remains the prime reason why we have had no say on the matter and have never been told the truth about its intention.

[/CENTER]

---

I don't doubt it was moving towards (what you call) a superstate in 1972. In fact I believe it was as I always have done. But you can't tell me that you believe in 1950 when the plans were starting to be drawn up they thought that it would be moving that way. I mean come off it, the French and the Germans wanting a political union just 5 years after the French had discovered their own citizens being murdered in Auschwitz where 1.1 Million people died. It never happened.

On the topic of the Superstate, the EU is not a Superstate. It never has been. It lacks several key characteristics of a state and primarily because it isn't supranational. UK law is ALWAYS above EU law simply because Parliament cannot bind it's successors. I mean you say if UKIP came to power then they would withdraw from Europe, that would be impossible if it was a Superstate would it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That is how capitalism works, you cannot have an economy that never has a bust as Gordon Brown has claimed to have ended. If Thatcher had not de-regulated the economy then we would never have become a financial sector - the UK started recieving a large amount of regulation from the EU since the 1990s (one of the reasons Nigel Farage left business in the City) yet that did not stop the bust. The country of Switzerland on the other hand is very de-regulated and remains so, because it is not part of the European Union.

---

I do believe you will always have busts and I have never denied that. Its the extent of the busts that I'm concerned about. EU regulation is nothing like the regulation Thatcher got rid of towards the 1980s, they are completely different kinds. Switzerland has a very different economy to us and always has done, companies in Switzerland tend to be far smaller than those in Britain and no, that isn't because they aren't in Europe. Lets look at a neighbour that isn't in Europe but with a similar economy shall we? Iceland was possibly the worst hit country by the recession and yet it isn't in Europe. What was the primary factor of its collapse? Why it's 2001 deregulation measures of course!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

It's irrelevant when the height of the british empire was, my point is that the amount of decline hasn't been to a large extent.

---

Yeh fair enough, around 20th just seems quite low down to me.

You're both talking about matters that have NOTHING to do with the decline of Britain. The ideology of a superstate doesn't reflect anything on the decline of England. The fact remains that England is the super-power in Europe and that there has been little decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

You're both talking about matters that have NOTHING to do with the decline of Britain. The ideology of a superstate doesn't reflect anything on the decline of England. The fact remains that England is the super-power in Europe and that there has been little decline.

---

I agree and we should get back on topic but the nature of debates is they always veer from the key issue and the EU is an integral part of the world now as it's seen to be one of the most powerful organisations on Earth and Britain is a part of it. Anyway, yeh. I promise not to be bad anymore ^^. +Rep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

I agree and we should get back on topic but the nature of debates is they always veer from the key issue and the EU is an integral part of the world now as it's seen to be one of the most powerful organisations on Earth and Britain is a part of it. Anyway, yeh. I promise not to be bad anymore ^^. +Rep.

---

There's no doubting the power of the EU. It's an incredibly powerful organisation but it has it's downpoint, for example allowing mass immigration. And yes, Britain is part of it and there are no doubts that Britain is an integral part of it and in this sense, this strengthens the claim that Britain is the biggest super-power in Europe.

the condition of superpower changed from conquest to economic ability.

There are reasons why the americans and the germans are better than us in this regard:

America has never had a war fought on their land which destroyed its infrastructure. plus its growth has been planned much better than in this country.

Germany had its infrastructure rebuilt after WW2.

Britain after WW2 had massive debts and just couldnt afford to invest. Growth in the commonwealth (where most trade went) was low and their economies were very small in comparison to europe and the US.

Economically since after the ERM disaster (brought on by the thatcher government), the UK has enjoyed good growth.

In my opinion the 'social' decline (and i guess economic decline too) is really concentrated in particular areas of the country (not so much the south where investment has been and encouraged by poor governance and certain governments recognising that they only needed to look after their own supporters to keep power) of where big, old and in certain examples public industries have died out due to foreign competition leaving masses of unemployment, temporary or replaced with poorly paid jobs and a more individualistic attitude coupled with lowering expectations meant that people's expectations of life fell and fell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

In my opinion the 'social' decline (and i guess economic decline too) is really concentrated in particular areas of the country (not so much the south where investment has been and encouraged by poor governance and certain governments recognising that they only needed to look after their own supporters to keep power) of where big, old and in certain examples public industries have died out due to foreign competition leaving masses of unemployment, temporary or replaced with poorly paid jobs and a more individualistic attitude coupled with lowering expectations meant that people's expectations of life fell and fell.

---

I agree and I think we are only just starting to see this problem addressed and whilst it's sad that it took so long it is also good that it is now being helped. Increasingly we are seeing disused shipyards and other such places being used to fuel new industries such as building wind turbines and disused factories being converted into shopping centres. I think governments are finally beginning to concentrate not just on the south but on the north as well where the problems are, as you say, often worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

I don't doubt it was moving towards (what you call) a superstate in 1972. In fact I believe it was as I always have done. But you can't tell me that you believe in 1950 when the plans were starting to be drawn up they thought that it would be moving that way. I mean come off it, the French and the Germans wanting a political union just 5 years after the French had discovered their own citizens being murdered in Auschwitz where 1.1 Million people died. It never happened.

---

I do believe that - the intention since the League of Nations has always been world government, starting with the federalisation of the continents of the world. It is not crazy conspiracy theory, it came from the very mouth of Herman Van Rompuy himself. The European Union had always been designed to be accepted as a fact of life, for us not to question it and its worked - just look at how far the project has gone. I would agree with you again, and again I point back to the fact that this is not the people building this superstate, it is the politicial elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

On the topic of the Superstate, the EU is not a Superstate. It never has been. It lacks several key characteristics of a state and primarily because it isn't supranational. UK law is ALWAYS above EU law simply because Parliament cannot bind it's successors. I mean you say if UKIP came to power then they would withdraw from Europe, that would be impossible if it was a Superstate would it not?

---

The European Union and its fellow European insitutions (which are the same in all but name) have a flag, an anthem, a parliament (with no real legislative powers), a President, control over nation states economic, social and political policy - to pretend the European Union is nowhere near statehood or is just an organisation really is kidding yourself and to put it on the back burner is very dangerous. I am very happy that you brought up the EU-UK law relationship but you are very much mistaken - EU law takes supremacy over British law and theres nothing our sovereign parliament can do to repeal EU laws/regulations imposed on us; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suprema...n_Union_law%29 - the same also applies to the courts of the United Kingdom and the European Union (ECJ/ECHR). A parliament can bind its successors and many across Europe did exactly that by introducing the euro thus handing the power of monetary and economic control to Brussels and removing it from the elected government. It is the way the European Union works, by stealth and its been very good at it.

We do still have the means to leave the European Union but in reality any state could potentially leave its artificial mother (Yugoslavia, USSR, UK and so on). We do not however have the means to repeal EU law, unless we leave. The further we go on like this then the harder it will become to leave in a proper and peaceful manner, otherwise the only option is the violent and messy divorce that states such as Yugoslavia experienced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

I do believe you will always have busts and I have never denied that. Its the extent of the busts that I'm concerned about. EU regulation is nothing like the regulation Thatcher got rid of towards the 1980s, they are completely different kinds. Switzerland has a very different economy to us and always has done, companies in Switzerland tend to be far smaller than those in Britain and no, that isn't because they aren't in Europe. Lets look at a neighbour that isn't in Europe but with a similar economy shall we? Iceland was possibly the worst hit country by the recession and yet it isn't in Europe. What was the primary factor of its collapse? Why it's 2001 deregulation measures of course!

---

European Union legislation is the type of regulation Thatcher removed - it hinders growth, hurts business and ends the free market. If regulation prevents bust like you are claiming, then why did Switzerland not crash just like the regulated economics of Europe did so? Perhaps as I suspect and many in business know, regulations only hinders growth and leads to unemployment and the dampening of the entrepreneurial. The difference between governments is that Iceland was not prepared for a bust whereas Switzerland is well geared upto withstand economic downturn because being a hub of business, it knows that downturns are inevitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

You're both talking about matters that have NOTHING to do with the decline of Britain. The ideology of a superstate doesn't reflect anything on the decline of England. The fact remains that England is the super-power in Europe and that there has been little decline.

---

The EEC was mentioned as a factor which helped Britain back on its feet and ended the decline, this is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

There's no doubting the power of the EU. It's an incredibly powerful organisation but it has it's downpoint, for example allowing mass immigration. And yes, Britain is part of it and there are no doubts that Britain is an integral part of it and in this sense, this strengthens the claim that Britain is the biggest super-power in Europe.

---

Not to mention the downpoints of;

• The unelected commission being made up of 'ex'-communists from the USSR.
• The unelected commission being made up of fraudsters and embezzlers.
• The unelected President being on more than the President or PM of the US/UK.
• The elected parliament being only a consultative body and not a body with any legit powers.
• The fact the books of the EU have not been signed off for over a decade now.
• The £45 to £60 million we pay daily to the EU to spend elsewhere in other countries.
• The £100 billion to £130 billion lost to business each year because of EU regulations.
• The loss of national parliament sovereignty to a foreign body which is unaccountable to the British electorate.
• The fact that we have never been given a choice on whether to be part of this political, social and economic union.
• The fact that the EU regulary tramples over democracy (the French, Dutch and Irish referendums)
• The fact the EU and its supporters resort to calling its opposition nazis, extremists and fascists.
• The fact the EU is handing more power back to the unions after our own government rightfully removed those powers.
• The fact the EU spends our own money on propaganda videos, signs, logos and schemes which you can find plastered over nearly every inner-city.
• The fact the EU can fine this country despite this country being one of the top contributors.

The case you make of the United Kingdom being a superpower within Europe also does not stand upto anything; we caved in on a number of issues/were overruled by the EU on;

• The British rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher.
• The pathetic pledge to 'review' and not change the disasterous CAP policy.
• The British government was recently overruled by Brussels (headed by the French and Germans) in changing the hedge fund/private equity laws of which 80% across Europe is based in Britain and that Britain gains a sum of around £5 billion a year thanks to our competitiveness.

In short; the UK is not a superpower within Europe and the longer we remain a part of this Franco-German axis, the more our influence weakens and the further down the road of decline we go (once again).