Young Writers Society

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011 ... eu-cameron

Cameron says, "No." And if he says no, so do the Tory MPs - even if the back-benchers are squealing and squawking for a debate. Even the Euroskeptic William Hague is all game for ignoring discussions and staying firmly with the EU. The LibDems are classically EU-supporters and Labour, as the shadow party, like to sway with the public.

But what do we think?

I, personally, am starting to see a lack of benefit to Britain remaining in the EU. People voted in 1975 to be in the EU for free trade and shared economic aims, but the EU is becoming increasingly state-like - passing our laws, interfering with British politics and asking us to pay huge sums of money to hold up the euro.

Thoughts?

I think that staying with the EU for trade purposes is good, but when the unelected heads of the EU can pass laws that effect every country that is part of it, then I start to have issues. Also, with the ever-increasing population numbers in the UK, a significant portion of the immigration comes from EU member states. I can't help thinking that there would not be so much of a problem if the UK was not a part of the organization, making immigration tighter as it is for non-EU member states.

I pretty much share your views there.

And what about the quarter of a million Brits living in Spain? And in France, and Germany, and Italy?

The EU passes very few laws with which every member-state must be compliant; invariably, they are recommendations, and cannot forcibly overrule an independent parliament. So let's leave this silly Euro-skepticism behind us. Britain's no longer an Imperial power, so let's use the imperfect EU democracy to shape Europe into something worthwhile.

The problem with these international bodies, such as the UN, EU, and NATO, is not that they are ill-willed, but that they force the strong, prosperous nations (US, UK, France, Germany, ext.) to support the uneasy, weak, poorer countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, ext.)

There is something inherently dangerous and just plain immoral with this whole idea. Why should my country (USA) have to prop up world governments and provide immense foreign aid, when we have to borrow money to do it.

With this type of system, if one country fails (there will always be one, whether capitalist or socialist) the entire chain could break apart, and what should have been an isolated incident, where maybe a couple thousand emigrate to the country next door, can turn into 2008.

To you Brits (and even more earnestly, you Germans) if you are tired of supporting the "pig nations" of the EU, then you should get your government to get out of there, as the US should get out of the UN, NATO, and get rid of all foreign aid that isn't going to: Isreal, South Korea and Japan, Iraq, and Afghanastan.

Is it me, or have violent conflicts only increased since the birth of the UN?

Mucho,

There is something inherently dangerous and just plain immoral with this whole idea. Why should my country (USA) have to prop up world governments and provide immense foreign aid, when we have to borrow money to do it.

And the fallacy lies therein.

Why should your country care? God-damn there's that trademark american attitude. The U.S is still in a barbaric state, that is to say, they have matured as a super power. They haven't learnt from the past. Some have argued that they are maturing now, moving towards decadence, but I disagree.

The reason your country should care Mucho is simple -- and by the way your assertion into this argument is misplaced, The US benefits hugely by it's involvement in Nato and the UN, because they can garner support for their folly in the Arab states.
The US is a super power by default. If you think the people are better, the government is better, the diplomacy is better -- you are wrong. It's simply a case of geopolitics. Countries go through phases, not because of policy, but rather because of geopolitics. Americans site the declaration of independence, the breakdown of trade tariffs, Democracy. While these things didn't deter the surge in GDP and market control, you wouldn't say they are the root cause. Look at the geography. Look at the fact no war has been fought on U.S soil, consider the coast and navy, they are the only country with the capacity to control the pacific and the Atlantic. Consider population and proximity to Mexico. Consider minimum wage and momentum and outside investment. So what does all this mean?

It means, as many futurists have predicted, like all superpowers a collapse is imminent. Some have said within twenty years, some one hundred, but it is agreed that it's coming -- and all the political rhetoric about too big to fail, the constitution, Democracy won't help. Other countries have begun replacing their reserves, green backs, with other forms of currency, Standard and Poor's have seen it too. So consider this, if the U.S forfeits it's position, then what? Are you going to decline global intervention? These institutions were established because the global powers recognised the volatility of international finance. It's as much a safe guard for other countries as it is for the members themselves.

You need only look at unemployment, minimum wage, healthcare, class-gaps to realize the U.S is beginning to look dire.

So when you say, why should I help some starving kid in Africa, or some Old man in Greece, say to yourself 'because I am lucky enough to be born into relative wealth, not by design but by chance.' And think ' That could will be us, one day.'

And to blame the 2008 financial collapse on international aid is bizarre, its insane. Blame unjustified wars, blame unscrupulous bankers, blame capitalism. Blame wage gaps and lobbyists. Blame eight years of irresponsibility. Don't blame the pittance dished out in foreign aid.

As for your assertion that the U.S should default from their Nato, U.N responsibility. It's simply inane. These organizations were set up with The U.s' full cooperation, as they benefit most. It gives them a pathway into the middle east, where with brute force, they can collapse governments to black ball the governments allies, be it Russia, China, Turkey, India.

Now to the original question. England leaving the EU.

England can't. I assume you are from England and understand the austerity measures introduced in and around February. The U.K GDP is in free-fall. Investors are weary of the English market, choosing the security of BRIC economies and Wall St. So why on earth would you want to abandon Germany as they begin to accumulate momentum? The GBP isn't as closly tied to the Euro as some would have you believe, and even if it was, the Euro, while volatile in nature, has the potential to blow up as Countries look to replace their green back reserves. Euro reserves seem strange but what other choices are there? AU? its beginning to plateau. Yuan? perhaps if China stop manipulating it, Yen? as stable as the Euro anyway. Then what? Futurist George Friedman has suggested the E.U will expand, not collapse. And I am inclined to agree.

Also, the E.U suggest policy. They don't enforce it.

JP