Obama now telling the UK what to do?

[Fruitcake]

I read with great interest that the meddlesome USA President is now telling the idiot Cameron that exiting the EU is a bad idea.

Well of course it is for the USA. They then lose a reliable partner inside this awful organisation. Others will say "oh but they can rely on Germany" but this has not proven to be the case in the past with regards to the EU. No the USA certainly do not want the influence of the UK to leave the table. All those smaller EU countries who generally line up behind the UK when it comes to matters near to the US heart would then scurry for cover.

I would like to know if the US states would allow the insidious removal of sovereign powers from their state legislatures? I would be amazed if the US allowed anything near to the European Commission, a body of unelected people who are answerable to no one.

This from the Financial Times:

The Obama administration on Wednesday publicly signalled its growing concern about a possible British exit from the EU, just days before David Cameron sets out plans for a referendum on the issue.

US diplomats have privately warned for months that Mr Cameron risked setting Britain on a path to exit with his plan to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership terms and put the “new settlement” to a referendum. But Washington has now taken the unusual step of publicly briefing British journalists that it firmly believes the “special relationship” is best served by the UK remaining at the heart of Europe.

Philip Gordon, assistant secretary for European affairs, made it clear that there would be consequences for Britain if it either left the EU or played a lesser role in Brussels. “We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU,” he said. “That is in America’s interests. We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.”

Jacob Kirkegaard, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, said: “This is essentially [the US] saying to the UK – ‘you guys are on your own’. There is an element of pre-emption here and must be clearly intended to create waves.”

Dominic Raab, a Conservative backbencher, dismissed the warning, saying: “Britain should do what’s in its interests not what’s convenient for the Americans.” But a spokesman for Mr Cameron said: “The US wants an outward-looking EU with Britain in it and so do we.”

Mr Gordon, speaking at the US embassy in London, said that he did not want to interfere in British affairs but discussed the often “inward-looking” history of EU negotiations, noting that “referendums have often turned countries inwards”.

“The more the EU reflects on its internal debate the less it is able to be unified,” he said, adding that the continent was more effective when it worked together, for example over the recent oil embargo on Iran.

Mr Cameron wants Britain to stay in the EU but is expected later this month to set out a “renegotiate and referendum” strategy, which he would deploy if he wins Britain’s 2015 election.

The prime minister wants a looser relationship with an increasingly integrated inner EU core – based around the eurozone – and hopes to repatriate powers to Britain, such as rules limiting working hours.

The British negotiations would take place as part of what could be protracted talks on a proposed EU treaty to deepen eurozone economic union, making a UK referendum on the outcome unlikely before 2017 or 2018.

Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, said on Wednesday it could be at least two years before any new treaty came on to the table: “The possibility of having treaty change in the near future [is] present, but not very high.”

The opposition Labour party claims Britain risks “sleepwalking to [an EU] exit”. Douglas Alexander, shadow foreign secretary, said Britain needed to be careful not to become an “isolated island in the North Atlantic”.

“Critically [membership of the EU] amplifies UK influence in a world where economic and political power are shifting to the east,” he told the BBC’s Today programme on Thursday.

Business leaders, including Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson, warned this week in the FT that Mr Cameron would fail if he sought a “wholesale renegotiation” of Britain’s membership, heightening the risk of a No vote.

Apropos the EU, I recently read Daniels Hannan's book A Doomed Marriage: Britain and Europe. and would recommend any one who wants to get a clear picture from another perspective should read this.

[saxitoxin]

+500 SaxBucks

The USA has been the biggest cheerleader of the EU forever from Bush, to Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. It is the USA who demands Britain remain in the EU. It is the USA that shit Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria into the mouth of the EU over the howls of protest of France and Germany. It is the USA that - like clockwork - issues an annual demand Turkey be admitted.

The French and Germans have warned on this for years and no one is listening. Friedbert Pflueger, formerly the permanent secretary in the German defense ministry, warned about this in 2002. Mitterand called this "America's Trojan Horses" before he croaked.

Within days of the "Berlin Wall" falling there were dozens of Americans from the NED and IRI in every capital in eastern Europe with briefcases full of cash to provide "advice for fostering and developing civil society." All that "advice" has translated into entire political parties bankrolled by the U.S. from day one, and whose senior leadership were all shipped to the U.S. to be educated in the Ivy League and interned with U.S. politicians (even that French tart LaGarde, now heading the IMF, had her first job working for former US defense minister Cohen as his valet).

Under no circumstances will the UK ever be allowed to leave the EU. It's time Nigel whatever-his-name-is-I-forget, wake up and smell the coffee. He will find himself blocked at every turn by more money, better coordination and - when all else fails - straight up dirty tricks.

[chang50]

I read with great interest that the meddlesome USA President is now telling the idiot Cameron that exiting the EU is a bad idea.

Well of course it is for the USA. They then lose a reliable partner inside this awful organisation. Others will say "oh but they can rely on Germany" but this has not proven to be the case in the past with regards to the EU. No the USA certainly do not want the influence of the UK to leave the table. All those smaller EU countries who generally line up behind the UK when it comes to matters near to the US heart would then scurry for cover.

I would like to know if the US states would allow the insidious removal of sovereign powers from their state legislatures? I would be amazed if the US allowed anything near to the European Commission, a body of unelected people who are answerable to no one.

This from the Financial Times:

The Obama administration on Wednesday publicly signalled its growing concern about a possible British exit from the EU, just days before David Cameron sets out plans for a referendum on the issue.

US diplomats have privately warned for months that Mr Cameron risked setting Britain on a path to exit with his plan to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership terms and put the “new settlement” to a referendum. But Washington has now taken the unusual step of publicly briefing British journalists that it firmly believes the “special relationship” is best served by the UK remaining at the heart of Europe.

Philip Gordon, assistant secretary for European affairs, made it clear that there would be consequences for Britain if it either left the EU or played a lesser role in Brussels. “We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU,” he said. “That is in America’s interests. We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.”

Jacob Kirkegaard, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, said: “This is essentially [the US] saying to the UK – ‘you guys are on your own’. There is an element of pre-emption here and must be clearly intended to create waves.”

Dominic Raab, a Conservative backbencher, dismissed the warning, saying: “Britain should do what’s in its interests not what’s convenient for the Americans.” But a spokesman for Mr Cameron said: “The US wants an outward-looking EU with Britain in it and so do we.”

Mr Gordon, speaking at the US embassy in London, said that he did not want to interfere in British affairs but discussed the often “inward-looking” history of EU negotiations, noting that “referendums have often turned countries inwards”.

“The more the EU reflects on its internal debate the less it is able to be unified,” he said, adding that the continent was more effective when it worked together, for example over the recent oil embargo on Iran.

Mr Cameron wants Britain to stay in the EU but is expected later this month to set out a “renegotiate and referendum” strategy, which he would deploy if he wins Britain’s 2015 election.

The prime minister wants a looser relationship with an increasingly integrated inner EU core – based around the eurozone – and hopes to repatriate powers to Britain, such as rules limiting working hours.

The British negotiations would take place as part of what could be protracted talks on a proposed EU treaty to deepen eurozone economic union, making a UK referendum on the outcome unlikely before 2017 or 2018.

Herman Van Rompuy, the European Council president, said on Wednesday it could be at least two years before any new treaty came on to the table: “The possibility of having treaty change in the near future [is] present, but not very high.”

The opposition Labour party claims Britain risks “sleepwalking to [an EU] exit”. Douglas Alexander, shadow foreign secretary, said Britain needed to be careful not to become an “isolated island in the North Atlantic”.

“Critically [membership of the EU] amplifies UK influence in a world where economic and political power are shifting to the east,” he told the BBC’s Today programme on Thursday.

Business leaders, including Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson, warned this week in the FT that Mr Cameron would fail if he sought a “wholesale renegotiation” of Britain’s membership, heightening the risk of a No vote.

Apropos the EU, I recently read Daniels Hannan's book A Doomed Marriage: Britain and Europe. and would recommend any one who wants to get a clear picture from another perspective should read this.

Well he wouldn't be the first to tell Britain what to do,ever since Suez,or maybe earlier,we have had to do as we are told.It's sometimes laughingly referred to as 'the special relationshhip'.More like the relationship between a dog-owner and his lapdog.Effectively British autonomy was gone long before we joined the EU..

[saxitoxin]

Oh yeah, and the next EU member? Their lackey President's last job, before he got the President-for-Life gig, was as an attorney in New York working for the former U.S. Attorney-General's law firm ... followed by a stint at the U.S. State Department. This all occurred after his education at George Washington University. LOL.

Too bad the Russians didn't get him when they had the chance.

[BigBallinStalin]

Obviously, some people do not treasure unity at all costs--so long as those costs are imposed on others.

[Fruitcake]

Now the Germans are doing what comes naturally to them....piling in and giving unsolicited advice on the matter of the relationship between the UK and the EU;

A new, strongly worded warning against Britain leaving the EU has come from a delegation of visiting German MPs.

It follows Wednesday's expression of concern from a senior US official.

The cross-party delegation from the Bundestag's EU Affairs committee was in London to highlight Germany's growing alarm at the danger of a possible UK exit.

The chairman of the committee said if Britain left the EU, it would be disastrous for its economy. (My question is always thus: how so? The UK imports a lot more from the EU than it exports...We have a much larger trade organisation...the Commonwealth)

The delegation is meeting British government officials and talking to MPs at the House of Commons.

Briefing reporters at the German Embassy in London, Gunther Krichbaum, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling CDU party, said: "Losing the single market for the UK would be an economic disaster."

He added that more business leaders in Britain needed to make the case for continued membership.

'Pandora's box'

Mr Krichbaum also argued that Britain would suffer a significant loss of global prestige if it left the EU club. (Yeah ok....whatever)

"Britain leaving [the EU] would weaken the European idea, but it would weaken Britain's position in the world more," he said.

"By the end of the 21st Century, Europe will account for only 4% of the global population," he added. "We have to stand together." (sounds like panic to me)

Following Wednesday's public warning from the US Assistant Secretary of European Affairs, Philip Gordon, that the US wanted to see a continued strong UK voice within the EU, some members of the German delegation expressed the view that a British departure from the EU could damage relations with Washington for both London and Brussels.

Mr Krichbaum added that from his point of view, any attempt by Britain to renegotiate its position to reach a "new settlement" for continued membership would be resisted by its European partners. (So whacha going to do about it? Invade us?)

"Renegotiating the Lisbon Treaty is first of all legally impossible," he said.

"In the broader sense of negotiation a new treaty, it is neither wise nor useful to open a Pandora's box."

This would set a dangerous precedent and encourage other members states to try to renegotiate more favourable deals from their standpoints, Mr Krichbaum said.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the Brits leave, then the gig is up. The Southern EU members would have less resources to extract from the richer, northern EU members, and then many politicians would be forced to actually make the necessary spending cuts, reforms, etc., in order to enable more sustainable markets there. Since the ECB, IMF, and the banks' continue pressing down the governments' costs of borrowing, then they can continue kicking the can down the road.

I guess the logic is that if they're going to go down, then why not drag the UK into it? Of course, I could be wrong because politicians are altruistic, aware of the public interest, and almost always seek what is best for the people--regardless of the costs imposed on their own persons.


Why is the US compelling the UK to remain in the EU? Does the US fear that if the UK drops out, then the EU would dissolve, thus creating another recession with its own borders?

If so, then this current EU crisis is more costly. All the ECB, the IMF, and those theatrical politicians have been doing is prolonging their problems, thus delaying real growth and economic development. The bread and butter of improving people's lives is being withheld. This scenario reminds me of what Bastiat said:

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."


There is a limit to the EU, and they discovered it the hard way, so now it is time retrench from too much unification. Although this would be for the better, this is not good for those politicians who seek to expand their power through further unification by creating more unnecessary bureaucracies and superior branches of government.

[Ray Rider]

If the Brits leave, then the gig is up. The Southern EU members would have less resources to extract from the richer, northern EU members, and then many politicians would be forced to actually make the necessary spending cuts, reforms, etc., in order to enable more sustainable markets there. Since the ECB, IMF, and the banks' continue pressing down the governments' costs of borrowing, then they can continue kicking the can down the road.

I guess the logic is that if they're going to go down, then why not drag the UK into it? Of course, I could be wrong because politicians are altruistic, aware of the public interest, and almost always seek what is best for the people--regardless of the costs imposed on their own persons.


Why is the US compelling the UK to remain in the EU? Does the US fear that if the UK drops out, then the EU would dissolve, thus creating another recession with its own borders?

If so, then this current EU crisis is more costly. All the ECB, the IMF, and those theatrical politicians have been doing is prolonging their problems, thus delaying real growth and economic development. The bread and butter of improving people's lives is being withheld. This scenario reminds me of what Bastiat said:

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."


There is a limit to the EU, and they discovered it the hard way, so now it is time retrench from too much unification. Although this would be for the better, this is not good for those politicians who seek to expand their power through further unification by creating more unnecessary bureaucracies and superior branches of government.

There's a lot of good posts here, especially the last one. As for Dan Hannan, he's certainly an exceptional guy, and I read his writing weekly at the Telegraph. He wrote about this exact issue yesterday:

Of all the bad arguments for being in the EU, the worst is to humour Barack Obama

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: January 10th, 2013

416 Comments Comment on this article

Let's see how the Brits like being colonised…

Diplomats the world over tend to be the EU's biggest fans: the system, after all, was designed by and for people like them. The US State Department has been consistently Euro-integrationist since the 1950s, pouring resources into various European pressure groups that shared its aim. Back in those early days, its concern was to build up the Western alliance. The EEC was seen as a way of strengthening Nato and keeping countries out of the Soviet camp. We can argue about whether that rationale was valid even in the 1950s; it certainly hasn't been since 1989.

After the end of the Cold War, the Brussels élites started picking fights with what they called the world's hyperpuissance. They channelled funds to Hamas, declined to get tough with the ayatollahs in Teheran, declared their willingness in principle to sell weapons to China, refused to deal with the anti-Castro dissidents in Cuba, started building a satellite system with the Chinese to challenge American 'technological imperialism' (J Chirac), hectored the US about its failure to join various global technocracies and complained about domestic American policies, from cheap energy to the use of the death penalty. Most Americans, even some in the State Department, have started to grasp, Frankenstein-like, that the EU is turning against them. So now they want the most pro-American member state, namely the United Kingdom, to get stuck in and moderate these anti-yanqui tendencies. Would we mind abandoning our democracy so as to help them out?

Well, sorry chaps, but yes, we rather would mind. Of all the bad arguments for remaining in the EU, the single worst is that we should do so in order to humour Barack Obama, the most anti-British president for nearly 200 years. It's not even as if he reflects American opinion toward the EU. To treat Philip Gordon, or any other Foggy Bottom stripey-pants, as the authentic voice of the US on this issue would be like treating UKREP as the true voice of the UK.

Still, since he's decided to wade in, I have a question for Mr Gordon, and for other American Euro-enthusiasts. When are you planning to pool your sovereignty with Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba?

Nigel Farage is definitely worth checking out as well; you should see how he gets all the pro-integration Eurocrats at Brussels riled up every time he speaks!

[BigBallinStalin]

I try not to Ray Rider. I usually know where they're coming from, and the opposition is laughable. If I spend too much time worrying about this, I become frustrated because I realize that I'm hardly in any position to actually change anything.

There's way too many gullible and ignorant citizens who misplace their trust in the politicians to resolve these issues. And even if they do not vote, it does not matter because the politicians will do as they please and the 'believers' will accept the fallacious social contract theory as a justification for their own misplaced faith in the state.

This will continue until "Democracy in Deficit" becomes realized. Hopefully, at that point, the ignorant won't appeal to something more fascist or to somebody who markets himself very well.

It may seem extreme to think that 'when push comes to shove' that many would vote in favor of more fascist policies, but upon examining how little people care to be informed or how easily voters are persuaded, then it's easy to realize that such a scenario is likely.

For example, at the opportune time, all a politician needs to say is: "gun control" or "the neediest need help" or "terrorism" or "more taxes will reduce the deficit (because politicians will definitely not continue spending your money)." I don't mean to be a grumpy old man, but most voters are ignorant and ill-informed, and this benefits the well-organized rent-seekers of democratic institutions.

[Symmetry]

It's worth noting that Cameron didn't get elected as PM in the normal sense. He's PM because he's the leader of a party that allied with another party.

Most people in the UK voted against Cameron.

[cornpops]

'The Southern EU members would have less resources to extract from the richer, northern EU members, and then many politicians would be forced to actually make the necessary spending cuts, reforms, etc.'

the richer EU members don't actually contribute that much, net. off the top of my head, the UK's net contribution to the EU is about $15billion. split between east europe and the med, that's not really that much of a handout package.

the UK leaving the EU would be fucking stupid nationalism and nothing else. it would become south korea, or a gulf state, or new zealand. nice enough to live in, in control of resources and a relative amount of power, but it's never, ever going to be throwing its weight around on the international stage because no one would really care. as the commentators are constantly saying: right now, the UK negotiates with the world as a key member of the EU, an economy the size of america's. outside the EU, it would be negotiating as one of the aforementioned small and individual nations.

once all the old people who can remember the empire are dead the UK might finally be able to move on. there's actually a nice line from javier barden in Skyfall: 'England, the Empire, MI6... you're living in the ruins as well'. kind of sums up the mindset that says 'ha ha EU we don't need you, you need us'.

obama's only telling the truth.

[BigBallinStalin]

'The Southern EU members would have less resources to extract from the richer, northern EU members, and then many politicians would be forced to actually make the necessary spending cuts, reforms, etc.'

the richer EU members don't actually contribute that much, net. off the top of my head, the UK's net contribution to the EU is about $15billion. split between east europe and the med, that's not really that much of a handout package.

the UK leaving the EU would be fucking stupid nationalism and nothing else. it would become south korea, or a gulf state, or new zealand. nice enough to live in, in control of resources and a relative amount of power, but it's never, ever going to be throwing its weight around on the international stage because no one would really care. as the commentators are constantly saying: right now, the UK negotiates with the world as a key member of the EU, an economy the size of america's. outside the EU, it would be negotiating as one of the aforementioned small and individual nations.

once all the old people who can remember the empire are dead the UK might finally be able to move on. there's actually a nice line from javier barden in Skyfall: 'England, the Empire, MI6... you're living in the ruins as well'. kind of sums up the mindset that says 'ha ha EU we don't need you, you need us'.

obama's only telling the truth.

I would provide a well-thought reply, but instead:

[Fruitcake]

'The Southern EU members would have less resources to extract from the richer, northern EU members, and then many politicians would be forced to actually make the necessary spending cuts, reforms, etc.'

the richer EU members don't actually contribute that much, net. off the top of my head, the UK's net contribution to the EU is about $15billion. split between east europe and the med, that's not really that much of a handout package.

the UK leaving the EU would be fucking stupid nationalism and nothing else. it would become south korea, or a gulf state, or new zealand. nice enough to live in, in control of resources and a relative amount of power, but it's never, ever going to be throwing its weight around on the international stage because no one would really care. as the commentators are constantly saying: right now, the UK negotiates with the world as a key member of the EU, an economy the size of america's. outside the EU, it would be negotiating as one of the aforementioned small and individual nations.

once all the old people who can remember the empire are dead the UK might finally be able to move on. there's actually a nice line from javier barden in Skyfall: 'England, the Empire, MI6... you're living in the ruins as well'. kind of sums up the mindset that says 'ha ha EU we don't need you, you need us'.

obama's only telling the truth.

Your construct for argument does not bear close scrutiny.

Britain is the fourth largest GROSS contributor and second largest NET contributor to EU funds. Germany leads the way on both measures. in 2011 the UK contributed a GROSS €11.25 billion (€11,250,000,000) and received €6.57 billion in EU spending. The result being a net contribution of €4.68 billion. The total EU budget for that year was (if memory serves me correctly and it generally does on such important issues) around €142 billion. So the UK is contributing around 8% of the total budget. Now while these figures would seem to lessen the UK contribution the key is to look at the net contributors only (as all other countries take more than they give). When analysing this the % changes somewhat. There are 11 countries which are net contributors (some very small, but contributors all the same). The total net contributions of the net contributors is around €17 billion. Now set the UK NET contribution against this figure and the UK represents some 27% of the budget that is available for distribution to other countries who receive more than they give. The impact on this would be great if the UK left the EU.

Please do try to make sure of your figures when talking specifics. Your numbers were so wide of the mark as to destroy much of your ill thought and rash argument that then followed. However, for the sake of order I shall continue to your next points.

The richer EU members do actually contribute a great sum. This sum is the aforementioned circa €17 billion. If you do not think this is a great amount, please do some research, ask Greece (net €4.77 billion income from the EU) Portugal (net €3.12 billion income) Lithuania (€1.39 billion income), or any of the 15 countries who are in receipt of net funding from the EU whether 27% of their net income being removed is not much.

Your emotive sentence regarding nationalism has all the hallmarks of irrational reasoning and little to no basis in facts. The UK is somewhat larger than the countries you choose as examples of what it would become. The UK (in 2011) had the 9th largest GDP on the planet. Your examples ranked 12th, 23rd (Saudi Arabia, so not really a 'gulf state' as I imagine you are thinking, but will do for this argument) and 63rd in the rankings. Looking at the facts another way, those 3 countries you give as an example, added together, just equal the UK on its own. I do not think that new Zealand, with an economy of 1/20th the size of the UK was the best example you might have chosen, you would have been better to continue your argument regarding the EU and chosen France.

You need to understand something. Throwing weight around in the international corridors of power is something limited to very few, and those select few do NOT include the EU in its entirety. The economists and forecasters for the EU itself have already admitted that this trading bloc will represent just 7% of world trade within 50 years, so whether the UK is a part of it or not is not germane to the argument. The UK does not negotiate as part of the EU in all it does or says. You are incorrect in your assertion that the EU has an economy the size of the USA. I very much doubt the veracity of your statement that this is sourced from commentators and if it is, more fool them for saying it and even more fool you for actually believing such a load of tripe. For the record, the USA economy is still the largest economy on the planet (although it is likely this will change soon). The EU, a bloc in decline, represents 80% at best the size of the USA in terms of GDP. If you analyse income per capita or other measure, the scale tips even more in favour of the USA.

Finally, you somewhat insulting remark regarding old people (those who recall the Empire are now sadly gone in the main, and those old people that are left still recall the struggle for freedom the UK involved itself in some 70 years ago) you fail to have learnt the simple ethic of history. We learn history so we can learn from it and hopefully not repeat the errors of the past. The UK has already moved on from the days of the Empire and is still doing so in the momentum building behind exiting an edifice such as the EU. This institution you seem to set such great store by has been responsible for the greatest financial calamity to beset Europe in memory. Greece now suffers a 50%+ unemployment rate for under 21 year olds (a huge if not unmanageable social problem in decades to come), Spain is now suffering the same rate with over 23% overall unemployment, Italy is accelerating behind them towards the same problems. To misquote Euripides in that one is judged by the company one keeps, it would be best for the UK to exit this whole crumbling mess as quickly as is possible!

I would be interested to know where your sources of information come from.

[_sabotage_]

I have only heard one thing by Nigel Farage, but money wasn't his only or even main contention about the EU. As I understood it, he was worried about the loss of the UK's sovereignty as following the dictates of the EU would supersede democratic choice in the matter.

[Baron Von PWN]

Oh yeah, and the next EU member? Their lackey President's last job, before he got the President-for-Life gig, was as an attorney in New York working for the former U.S. Attorney-General's law firm ... followed by a stint at the U.S. State Department. This all occurred after his education at George Washington University. LOL.

Too bad the Russians didn't get him when they had the chance.

By all Accounts Misha will be stepping down at the end of his term. The opposition parties even won a the parliamentary elections and the Opposition leader is the new prime minister and they control the parliament. (the more powerfull position once georgia's new constitution takes effect).

While this definetly doesn't discount your wider point, I find it unfair to chareterise Georgia in the way you have when they seem to be doing a pretty decent job at a peacefull transition of power .

[cornpops]

'Britain is the fourth largest GROSS contributor and second largest NET contributor to EU funds. Germany leads the way on both measures. in 2011 the UK contributed a GROSS €11.25 billion (€11,250,000,000) and received €6.57 billion in EU spending. The result being a net contribution of €4.68 billion.'

another way of looking at that is that britain contributed roughly 0.2% of it's $2.48trillion GDP in 2011. 0.2%. this begs the question: why does it matter if the UK is or isn't making a miniscule net contribution to the single market and european community it is a part of?

'The UK has already moved on from the days of the Empire and is still doing so in the momentum building behind exiting an edifice such as the EU. This institution you seem to set such great store by has been responsible for the greatest financial calamity to beset Europe in memory.'

the UK still owned almost all of its african colonies at the start of the 60s, and all of my grandparents have significant living memory of the time when india was a colony. what is that if not empire?

more than half of all the UK's trade is with other EU members, facilitated by the free market. the UK's place inside the single market makes it an attractive place for multinationals to base their european operations. how do you fancy the UK would fare if it pulled itself out of the single market?

and another way to look at it is that, forecasts assumed true, by 2020 China's economy will be roughly the size of the USA's. it matters little that the UK is bigger than most of the other small countries. it matters more than the UK will be far smaller than people like the USA and China, and the UK will need all the friends it has in that world (and let's be honest, the USA isn't really one of them).

[Neoteny]

If every time the US said "jump," the rest of the world didn't ask "how high," then perhaps you guys wouldn't have this problem.

PS, I'm not armed at this moment.

[saxitoxin]

Oh yeah, and the next EU member? Their lackey President's last job, before he got the President-for-Life gig, was as an attorney in New York working for the former U.S. Attorney-General's law firm ... followed by a stint at the U.S. State Department. This all occurred after his education at George Washington University. LOL.

Too bad the Russians didn't get him when they had the chance.

By all Accounts Misha will be stepping down at the end of his term. The opposition parties even won a the parliamentary elections and the Opposition leader is the new prime minister and they control the parliament. (the more powerfull position once georgia's new constitution takes effect).

While this definetly doesn't discount your wider point, I find it unfair to chareterise Georgia in the way you have when they seem to be doing a pretty decent job at a peacefull transition of power .

After he retires do you think he'll spend his sunset years (a) in a dacha in a shitfield in Georgia making matryoshka dolls, or, (b) in a penthouse in New York accepting million-dollar consulting fees from businesses who want to import pesticides to Georgia?

[Baron Von PWN]

Oh yeah, and the next EU member? Their lackey President's last job, before he got the President-for-Life gig, was as an attorney in New York working for the former U.S. Attorney-General's law firm ... followed by a stint at the U.S. State Department. This all occurred after his education at George Washington University. LOL.

Too bad the Russians didn't get him when they had the chance.

By all Accounts Misha will be stepping down at the end of his term. The opposition parties even won a the parliamentary elections and the Opposition leader is the new prime minister and they control the parliament. (the more powerfull position once georgia's new constitution takes effect).

While this definetly doesn't discount your wider point, I find it unfair to chareterise Georgia in the way you have when they seem to be doing a pretty decent job at a peacefull transition of power .

After he retires do you think he'll spend his sunset years (a) in a dacha in a shitfield in Georgia making matryoshka dolls, or, (b) in a penthouse in New York accepting million-dollar consulting fees from businesses who want to import pesticides to Georgia?

Why not C, in a villa in georgia enjoying Georgian wines and getting fat on kchachapuri and Kinkali? I'm sure Misha is quite wealthy as it is. I've actually lived in a dacha in a "shitfield" in Georgia as you put it, it's incredibly relaxing. I've also seen how far even a little money can go in such a place. If he chooses to quietly retire he will be able to afford a villa. The Georgian countryside is beautiful, I'm sure he'd be able to afford a nice flat in Tibilisi or Batumi also.

B is certainly a possibility though.