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

Has Britain Declined?

ENDS: 20/06/2010

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/.../12/flags2.jpg

This debate may sound broad, however is quite intriguing when putting your mind to it. Britain in the 19th/ early 20th century could be defined as a a large empire with colonies across the world and could be even classed as a term known as 'super power' with it's empire stretching across the globe. Many manufacturing goods were produced there and the 'Made in Britain' was a symbol to many good such as cars, clothes etc. Britain also used to be strong economically and had a pretty high level of social values, whilst now binge drinking, lack of respect, obesity, teenage pregnancy etc. is at sky high levels.

However, some may dismiss the claim saying it is simply the media over-exaggerating the problems within Britain. Statistically, Britain has become of the wealthiest nations (in terms of per capita) in the world. This includes a high standard of living and education, low corruption, a generally stronger economy and personal freedoms that are not enjoyed by nearly 95% of the world's population. Some even claim that Britain has simply been overshadowed by America, which after the Second World War became the focus of the world, or the "super power" of the world. They argue that is is simply a transitional process, where the torch is passed from country to country; may it be the Britain, USSR, USA and even China in the near future.

Anyway, now it is your chance to debate, what do you think. Do you really feel that Britain has fallen into a deep dark hole or does it still hold a powerful status in the world today?

I'll start the ball rolling.

Britain saw a decline throughout the 20th century for numerous reasons. Although the decline began towards the start of the 20th century it was after World War II when Britain began to lose its world power status. It was crippled by debt and having just defeated fascism it was now clear that it would be impossible and hypocritical to hold onto the Empire. However once Britain let go of the Empire it was not yet ready to find its place in the world. We believed too strongly in the power of both our country and the commonwealth, we still had delusions that we were a power to match the USA and Russia. It is because of this that we didn't join the EEC (The foundations of the EU) and quickly began to fall behind the rest of Europe, by the time the Government realised that this had happened we were locked out after the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Although we eventually joined in the 1970s we had missed out on the kind of economic miracle that Europe had experienced putting us at a huge disadvantage. Despite all this I do believe Britain remains a significant power in the world, once it realised it couldn't compete with America it found its place in Europe and as it stands today Britain is around 20th in terms of GDP per capita. This is not something to be snuffed at however it clearly indicates although a significant power Britain isn't the world leader it once was.

i think we still have a little bit of reputation but today the desicsions tht our government are making and waht the youths are doing is destroying it, Take things like the recession. we were fine then this comes along and it seems ever since then our econmy has gone into trumoil we need to get out of this hole fast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smiffy70

i think we still have a little bit of reputation but today the desicsions tht our government are making and waht the youths are doing is destroying it, Take things like the recession. we were fine then this comes along and it seems ever since then our econmy has gone into trumoil we need to get out of this hole fast

---

The thing is in terms of the recession everywhere has been hit, not just Britain. Its called the Global Financial Meltdown for a reason ;). In fact several European countries are in it worse than us who are often considered to be our main competitors.

Britain maintains a powerful status but one that is far lower than that of the 18th century, at the turn of the industrial revolution. Britain was the super-power, the powerhouse of the world, it's empire spanned half the globe, bringing in huge arrays of different produce; gold, spices etc. There was no army that could match Britains, with troops from tens of different colonies fighting under the flag. However, come back to present day and there is a declining Britain, a Britain that is suffering, both socially and economically. There is no doubting the causes, the First world war was no help to Britain, with the country taking huge loans from America to finance the war and with the result of the great depression, the economy was down and people were struggling to live. With the formation of the league of nations, Britain had to drop most of their colonies and were no longer the rulers but instead 'mandates' of these areas. With the rise of the USSR (Soviet Union), Britain was falling further and further behind other countries in Europe, countries such as France and Germany. Today Britain is still seen as the super-power of Europe with Russia but with globalisation, countries such as India and China are coming into the equation and with far bigger populations, pushing Britain back. However, Britain remains a major power, it is sixth in the GDP statistics of 2009 but lies 700% adrift of the United States. There is no doubt that Britain has declined but has this been to a large extent? Well the answer is obviously no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Britain maintains a powerful status but one that is far lower than that of the 18th century, at the turn of the industrial revolution. Britain was the super-power, the powerhouse of the world, it's empire spanned half the globe, bringing in huge arrays of different produce; gold, spices etc. There was no army that could match Britains, with troops from tens of different colonies fighting under the flag. However, come back to present day and there is a declining Britain, a Britain that is suffering, both socially and economically. There is no doubting the causes, the First world war was no help to Britain, with the country taking huge loans from America to finance the war and with the result of the great depression, the economy was down and people were struggling to live. With the formation of the league of nations, Britain had to drop most of their colonies and were no longer the rulers but instead 'mandates' of these areas. With the rise of the USSR (Soviet Union), Britain was falling further and further behind other countries in Europe, countries such as France and Germany. Today Britain is still seen as the super-power of Europe with Russia but with globalisation, countries such as India and China are coming into the equation and with far bigger populations, pushing Britain back. However, Britain remains a major power, it is sixth in the GDP statistics of 2009 but lies 700% adrift of the United States. There is no doubt that Britain has declined but has this been to a large extent? Well the answer is obviously no.

---

The thing is todays world powers are not like those of the 18th Century, then power was judged by how much land a country occupied wheras now its judged by a countries economy. Todays world powers are simply incomparable to those of a hundred years ago, Britain has just failed to make the transition from a Land Power to an Economic one. The real question is how countries such as China and India will dominate in the future, their economies are going through the economic boom that Britain had a hundred years ago and faster. China has accomplished what took Britain 100 years in just 25, it really is astonishing.

I don't know if you knew this but the GDP charts I suspect you are looking at are skewed primarily because of Americas population and country size. For a better indication of a healthy economy you should look at GDP per capita or even wealth distribution. Here countries like Switzerland perform better because although they are small countries, for their population size they are incredibly prosperous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

What may surprise you and others is that the height of the British empire was not in fact, as you say, the 18th Century but it was in 1922. After the First World War Britain occupied nearly a quarter of the worlds land mass. An impressive feat for a country that has just fought, what was then, the biggest war in history.

Firstly can I just say this is a rubbish debate, I've never known anyone dispute that Britain has declined and this is an enormous subject involving history over the past 300 years, the empire, two world wars, membership of the EU and all the politics and wars in between. I'm also struggling to disagree with any of the posts above, they're very good in content and recite the history perfectly, can't argue with that.

After World War II the torch was no doubt passed to the USA, which although was involved with Cold War with the Soviet Union, it always had the edge (Moon landings and nuclear weapons superiority for example) and eventually 'won' when the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 90s. Right now there seems to be two fairly equally weighted super powers, militarily speaking the USA still has the edge but China's grasp on economics is enormous and the USA is very reliant on this.

The UK remains a world power today because of it's history, mostly including monarchy and it's large military spending which I believe is second or third in the world, for a tiny island like ours that is enormous. Most importantly though it maintains a seat on the UN Security Council allowing it a veto along with the other world powers and is one of the few countries with nuclear weapons. Politically I think it has little influence these days however, the US seems to ignore it and within the EU, Germany has more power and the UK shares about as much power as France and Italy, despite generations before we were far more powerful than them. As the monarchy is inevitably phased out by Australia, Canada, the European Union and an ever more powerful government I think we will really lose our place in the world and the super power status the UK had in the 19th century and early 20th century will be forever forgotten. We will still continue to be a successful country I've no doubt, the country has a fantastic infrastructure whereas all these upcoming world powers do not but our influence/power will decline. Our increasingly strained relationship with the US is also a reason for us becoming a less powerful nation, the US is not as powerful as it used to be and Obama seems struck on further damaging the relations left by Bush/Blair.

Britain declined because of two reasons; World War II and socialism.

The mix of the rise of the United States, a unified German Empire (later the Third Reich) made our advantage slip away in time. The World War (II) only hastend the decline in this part leaving us with the immense strain of debt and a loss of appetite for Empire and imperialism - the truth is that the horrors of war in Asia and the idea that the government of the day was spending time fiddling with the colonies was viewed as wrong whilst the country was destroyed. The rise of nationalism in these countries also deepend the decline which made it impossible for Britain to continue with Empire whilst at the same time being drawn into the new Cold War in which the danger was that the nationalists in the colonies would join with the Soviet Union and create something worse than a domino effect; a mass changeover.

The fact is that socialism also brought the Empire down, whilst it is true that our Empire was biggest after World War I this was only because of the mandates and default governing going to the leading power which was Britain at that time. It started mainly from the 1880s onwards where socialism slowly crept into the system with nationalisation of companies such as the East India Company and the train lines. This [rabid socialism] was continued to the 1970s which left Britain behind as the 'sick man of Europe' - the EEC did not create an economic miracle, it was always the intention of the EEC (later EU) to become a unified superstate and Ted Heath (British PM) knew this very fact but used the excuse that the EEC would open up the economy and help the United Kingdom when it simply did not.

Britain has declined but we are still an Empire just in smaller terms than what we once were, with the reforms of Thatcher we gained our ground again and remained a Great Power and still remain as that to this day. However the damage inflicted on us by continous left wing governments and the European Union and beginning to threaten and weaken this country and its main asset, the financial sector. The whole concept of the European Union was and is to rival the United States and absord Britain within - they have remained jealous of the anglo-american bond throughout history (especially the French). We can remain a Great Power if we continue with Thatchers economic which are similar to those in South Korea, China and various other developing nations or we can go down the road of socialism again which will destroy what we have left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

it was always the intention of the EEC (later EU) to become a unified superstate and Ted Heath (British PM) knew this very fact but used the excuse that the EEC would open up the economy and help the United Kingdom when it simply did not.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Britain has declined but we are still an Empire just in smaller terms than what we once were, with the reforms of Thatcher we gained our ground again and remained a Great Power and still remain as that to this day. However the damage inflicted on us by continous left wing governments and the European Union and beginning to threaten and weaken this country and its main asset, the financial sector. The whole concept of the European Union was and is to rival the United States and absord Britain within - they have remained jealous of the anglo-american bond throughout history (especially the French). We can remain a Great Power if we continue with Thatchers economic which are similar to those in South Korea, China and various other developing nations or we can go down the road of socialism again which will destroy what we have left.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

The thing is todays world powers are not like those of the 18th Century, then power was judged by how much land a country occupied wheras now its judged by a countries economy. Todays world powers are simply incomparable to those of a hundred years ago, Britain has just failed to make the transition from a Land Power to an Economic one. The real question is how countries such as China and India will dominate in the future, their economies are going through the economic boom that Britain had a hundred years ago and faster. China has accomplished what took Britain 100 years in just 25, it really is astonishing.

I don't know if you knew this but the GDP charts I suspect you are looking at are skewed primarily because of Americas population and country size. For a better indication of a healthy economy you should look at GDP per capita or even wealth distribution. Here countries like Switzerland perform better because although they are small countries, for their population size they are incredibly prosperous:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...al)_per_capita

What may surprise you and others is that the height of the British empire was not in fact, as you say, the 18th Century but it was in 1922. After the First World War Britain occupied nearly a quarter of the worlds land mass. An impressive feat for a country that has just fought, what was then, the biggest war in history.

---

But in 1922 we weren't the most powerful nation, the United States was. Whereas at the time of the industrial revolution, no one came close to matching Britain. 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.

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).

Over here we see Britain as a backwards place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metric1

Over here we see Britain as a backwards place.

---

over here we see the US as a backwards place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

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


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).

---

Just because the EU has overruled Britain on several occasions does not mean the UK is not a super-power. The EU is made up of a great many nations and therefore obviously Britain isn't going to be able to stand up against the whole of the organisation.
I agree that Britain may be losing (part of) its influence but does that mean it's on the road to decline? No it doesn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Just because the EU has overruled Britain on several occasions does not mean the UK is not a super-power. The EU is made up of a great many nations and therefore obviously Britain isn't going to be able to stand up against the whole of the organisation.
I agree that Britain may be losing (part of) its influence but does that mean it's on the road to decline? No it doesn't

---

It does really though, if it's losing influence then it is declining. 100 years ago we were the most powerful nation on earth, today we're not. We clearly have declined, there is no argument there in my eyes. I think the EU influence does have a lot to do with the UK (no longer) being a super-power, if a foreign power has more influence over some issues than the UK Government, it is clearly a loss of power and therefore decline. That's undeniable whether you like the EU or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

It does really though, if it's losing influence then it is declining. 100 years ago we were the most powerful nation on earth, today we're not. We clearly have declined, there is no argument there in my eyes. I think the EU influence does have a lot to do with the UK (no longer) being a super-power, if a foreign power has more influence over some issues than the UK Government, it is clearly a loss of power and therefore decline. That's undeniable whether you like the EU or not.

---

But that's a collective foreign power. That's like saying the US has declined because the UN has the influence to override its decisions. Granted the Britain was the most powerful country but just because we aren't any more doesn't mean we've declined. Countries such as India, United States and China have far bigger land mass, a greater abundance of raw materials and far greater populations. Obviously they're going to grow faster and there's no surprise that Britain has been overtaken. In proportion of size, Britain is still the greatest country in the world. Britain is a super-power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But that's a collective foreign power. That's like saying the US has declined because the UN has the influence to override its decisions. Granted the Britain was the most powerful country but just because we aren't any more doesn't mean we've declined. Countries such as India, United States and China have far bigger land mass, a greater abundance of raw materials and far greater populations. Obviously they're going to grow faster and there's no surprise that Britain has been overtaken. In proportion of size, Britain is still the greatest country in the world. Britain is a super-power.

---

The UN cannot over-ride the US's decisions I believe, plus you cannot compare the US relationship with the UN and the UKs relationship with the EU. Two very different things.

By your system I reckon the Vatican City would probably be the most powerful country in the world, tiny population and land mass yet the ability to influence 1.1 Billion Catholics throughout the world. I'd also say that Japan possibly has just as much influence as us these days and in terms of land mass I believe we might even be a little bigger than Japan. The fact we are no longer the world super power says to me we have declined, we used to have influence all over the commonwealth and therefore a quarter of the Earth's land mass, we no longer do, there is evidence of declining. While we do have some say in the European Union, UK MEPs make up just under one tenth of the total MEPs within the EU Parliament. They can influence our justice system, economic laws, borders etc. That means the UK Government has lost power whether you like it or not, further evidence of decline.

I'm not saying we're a **** nation or even that decline is a bad thing, I just think you're stupid if you can't accept that it has happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

The UN cannot over-ride the US's decisions I believe, plus you cannot compare the US relationship with the UN and the UKs relationship with the EU. Two very different things.

By your system I reckon the Vatican City would probably be the most powerful country in the world, tiny population and land mass yet the ability to influence 1.1 Billion Catholics throughout the world. I'd also say that Japan possibly has just as much influence as us these days and in terms of land mass I believe we might even be a little bigger than Japan. The fact we are no longer the world super power says to me we have declined, we used to have influence all over the commonwealth and therefore a quarter of the Earth's land mass, we no longer do, there is evidence of declining. While we do have some say in the European Union, UK MEPs make up just under one tenth of the total MEPs within the EU Parliament. They can influence our justice system, economic laws, borders etc. That means the UK Government has lost power whether you like it or not, further evidence of decline.

I'm not saying we're a **** nation or even that decline is a bad thing, I just think you're stupid if you can't accept that it has happened.

---

How are they different? They are both organisations formed by different countries, both setting regulations that members have to listen to. We no longer have influence over the commonwealth but that doesn't mean we have declined, we let them go, we've obviously still got good relations with the nations hence the commonwealth games. This is not decline. The Vatican City? It has influence over catholics but in worlds politics? No it hasn't. Japan has more than double our population so obviously they're going to grow at a bigger rate.
Just because over nations have overtaken us doesn't mean there is decline.

Edit: Japan is also larger by over 130,000 km squared.

Statistics of total area of countries.

KM Squared

61: Japan 377,930
79: United Kingdom 242,900

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

The UN cannot over-ride the US's decisions I believe, plus you cannot compare the US relationship with the UN and the UKs relationship with the EU. Two very different things.

By your system I reckon the Vatican City would probably be the most powerful country in the world, tiny population and land mass yet the ability to influence 1.1 Billion Catholics throughout the world. I'd also say that Japan possibly has just as much influence as us these days and in terms of land mass I believe we might even be a little bigger than Japan. The fact we are no longer the world super power says to me we have declined, we used to have influence all over the commonwealth and therefore a quarter of the Earth's land mass, we no longer do, there is evidence of declining. While we do have some say in the European Union, UK MEPs make up just under one tenth of the total MEPs within the EU Parliament. They can influence our justice system, economic laws, borders etc. That means the UK Government has lost power whether you like it or not, further evidence of decline.

I'm not saying we're a **** nation or even that decline is a bad thing, I just think you're stupid if you can't accept that it has happened.

---

Indeed, and to add to that you must also remember that the parliament of the European Union is only a consultative parliament and not a parliament with any real legislative power over the Commission, European Council or the ECJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

How are they different? They are both organisations formed by different countries, both setting regulations that members have to listen to. We no longer have influence over the commonwealth but that doesn't mean we have declined, we let them go, we've obviously still got good relations with the nations hence the commonwealth games. This is not decline. The Vatican City? It has influence over catholics but in worlds politics? No it hasn't. Japan has more than double our population so obviously they're going to grow at a bigger rate.
Just because over nations have overtaken us doesn't mean there is decline.

Edit: Japan is also larger by over 130,000 km squared.

Statistics of total area of countries.

KM Squared

61: Japan 377,930
79: United Kingdom 242,900

---

It matters very little how big your nation state is in terms of area or land so I really have no idea why you keep bringing that fact up because we all know pretty much how big countries are and are not. Of course being in the European Union deepens the decline, if your nation has handed over its sovereign decisions and is being overruled in its sovereign courts/parliament then you have not only lost influence but you barely hold the right to call yourself a nation state anymore. The Commonwealth on the other hand also lost its influence and importance because we foolishly turned our backs on trade with our anglo relatives (India, Canada, New Zealand and Austrialia to name a few) and turned to Europe which is in decline no matter what in terms of future projected birth rates and trade.

In short, we swapped the likes of India and the world for a closed economy within Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

But that's a collective foreign power. That's like saying the US has declined because the UN has the influence to override its decisions. Granted the Britain was the most powerful country but just because we aren't any more doesn't mean we've declined. Countries such as India, United States and China have far bigger land mass, a greater abundance of raw materials and far greater populations. Obviously they're going to grow faster and there's no surprise that Britain has been overtaken. In proportion of size, Britain is still the greatest country in the world. Britain is a super-power.

---

That would be the case if the United Nations could overrule the United States but it cannot as the United States is a member of the security council along with the United Kingdom, Russia, France and the PROC. The word super-power is also wrong to describe ourselves as, we are a great power not a super power. The United States is a super-power just like we used to be (infact you could call Britain a hyper-power under Empire as it had little/no opposition whereas the USA had the USSR to contend with).

Super power/s 2010: United States
Great power/s 2010: United Kingdom, Japan, Russia, Peoples Republic of China, Germany, France.

The generally agreed list can be found on this page if you scroll down;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_p...powers_by_date

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It matters very little how big your nation state is in terms of area or land so I really have no idea why you keep bringing that fact up because we all know pretty much how big countries are and are not. Of course being in the European Union deepens the decline, if your nation has handed over its sovereign decisions and is being overruled in its sovereign courts/parliament then you have not only lost influence but you barely hold the right to call yourself a nation state anymore. The Commonwealth on the other hand also lost its influence and importance because we foolishly turned our backs on trade with our anglo relatives (India, Canada, New Zealand and Austrialia to name a few) and turned to Europe which is in decline no matter what in terms of future projected birth rates and trade.

In short, we swapped the likes of India and the world for a closed economy within Europe.

---

I'm pointing out that we've been overtaken by bigger nations because of their potential. Obviously a country with a far greater land mass filled with millions more people and with easier access to raw materials is going to thrive quicker than that of a smaller country such as Britain. Yes we foolishly gave the commonwealth away but by being a member of the EU does not mean we don't have the right 'to call Britain a nation state'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

I'm pointing out that we've been overtaken by bigger nations because of their potential. Obviously a country with a far greater land mass filled with millions more people and with easier access to raw materials is going to thrive quicker than that of a smaller country such as Britain. Yes we foolishly gave the commonwealth away but by being a member of the EU does not mean we don't have the right 'to call Britain a nation state'.

---

If the United Kingdom has most of its laws/regulations made in Brussels, if the United Kingdom can be overruled by Brussels on both law & courts and if Brussels can fine the United Kingdom then I fail to see how the United Kingdom is a sovereign state in its own right. To say we have somehow not declined is wrong because we have, and the longer we stay within the European Union then the more our decline will hasten - the European Union is never going to work and will only have a short life, but the longer we stay in it then the more we loose our influence around the world which is the ghost of Empire.

A country with more materials/resources will not always be more powerful than a smaller state, infact its pretty much irrelvent. The system of economics is relevent though and the only reason China, India and others are overtaking the western world now is because they have adopted capitalism, the wests economic system. Europe, Africa, South America, North America and Asia had more resources each alone than Britain ever did but Britain developed first because it was the driving force of the new economic system (at the time was state capitalism).

this thread isn't really about the EU but i'll say this:

Britain is a PART of the EU, not RULED by the EU.

&that's all i have to say on it. and there is a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

this thread isn't really about the EU but i'll say this:

Britain is a PART of the EU, not RULED by the EU.

&that's all i have to say on it. and there is a difference.

---

Not according to Undertaker.
Britain doesn't have to completely bow down to what the EU says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

this thread isn't really about the EU but i'll say this:

Britain is a PART of the EU, not RULED by the EU.

&that's all i have to say on it. and there is a difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Not according to Undertaker.
Britain doesn't have to completely bow down to what the EU says.

---

As I stated before, EU courts and law have supremacy over British courts and law. Name it how you want; bow down, ordered, ruled by etc - it is fact and it is a sign of the decline of Britain as we severed trading ties with the Commonwealth, not to mention it [the European project] is totally wrong and has no democracic legitimacy. Let us stop pretending the EU is some sort of club because it isnt. We can either accept decline and surrender ourselves to the European Union and become a stale part of the world as Europe is posed to become, or we can trade with the world and remain a sovereign state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

As I stated before, EU courts and law have supremacy over British courts and law. Name it how you want; bow down, ordered, ruled by etc - it is fact and it is a sign of the decline of Britain as we severed trading ties with the Commonwealth, not to mention it [the European project] is totally wrong and has no democracic legitimacy. Let us stop pretending the EU is some sort of club because it isnt.

---

Ok I accept your point but there's no rule that states a member cannot leave the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Ok I accept your point but there's no rule that states a member cannot leave the EU.

---

There is no rule no, but when somebody has control of your monetary system, economic system, social & justice affairs and foreign affairs then you could basically say that the member state no longer exists as there is only one person incharge then, the European Union and its fellow European insitutions. I very much doubt there was a specific 'rule' banning withdrawal for Soviet states in the USSR or the states that made up Yugoslavia.

It isnt really a case about decline anymore, its more a case of whether or not we want to exist as a nation state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

How are they different? They are both organisations formed by different countries, both setting regulations that members have to listen to. We no longer have influence over the commonwealth but that doesn't mean we have declined, we let them go, we've obviously still got good relations with the nations hence the commonwealth games. This is not decline. The Vatican City? It has influence over catholics but in worlds politics? No it hasn't. Japan has more than double our population so obviously they're going to grow at a bigger rate.
Just because over nations have overtaken us doesn't mean there is decline.

Edit: Japan is also larger by over 130,000 km squared.

Statistics of total area of countries.

KM Squared

61: Japan 377,930
79: United Kingdom 242,900

---

Just to confirm, you've asked me to tell you the difference between the EU and the UN? I was gonna reply in an essay style form to all your points, but what's the point, you don't know the difference between two entirely different organisations, the EU and the UN. Quite laughable to be honest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

There is no rule no, but when somebody has control of your monetary system, economic system, social & justice affairs and foreign affairs then you could basically say that the member state no longer exists as there is only one person incharge then, the European Union and its fellow European insitutions. I very much doubt there was a specific 'rule' banning withdrawal for Soviet states in the USSR or the states that made up Yugoslavia.

It isnt really a case about decline anymore, its more a case of whether or not we want to exist as a nation state.

---

I agree with what you say but as you also say, the debate is about whether or not Britain are declining. As my first post says, I believe that we have declined but not to a greater extent. Taking into account what you've said, I do agree that if we are more or less subject to what they say, Britain will have less influence in Europe. However, I still feel that Britain is classed as a super-power.