First of all it is Spiegal and second it is Schroeder therefore it is rubbish.
But.
GB is far from the nay sayer it is portrayed to be and has been shown to be far more supportive of European legislation even when it is not helpful to her citizens.
GB stands and opposes poor legislation proposed in the EU and is constantly berated for doing so. GB is usually right. The legislation is poorly defined and its consequences will be bad for all.
The rest of the EU complains that GB is being obstructive. Then implements legislation that fails.
The other side of the coin is that GB implements far more legislation than other EU nations. Irrespective of damage to our economy and populace we plough on implementing ridiculous legislation.
Other EU nations simply ignore legislation they do not like until forced to implement. The EU has to go to all sorts of expenses in the courts when some nations are refusing to be good Europeans like GB.
It is also obvious that other European nations are far more defensive of their own sovereign rights than GB.
GB has shown to be willing to give up certain rights as European members where other members vociferously defend theirs. The only real time we made any fuss was when Maggie demanded her money back from legislation that was forced (and still is) through to benefit French farmers incapable of competing in a modern farming world.
I work on the mainland and would be damaged if GB pulled out, but I believe we should.
The EU needs to be either a relaxed trading agreement or a fully committed United body.
I can not see all nations giving up sovereignty and identity for the later so the former it must be.
If you want to see how hard it would be to achieve real union then just look at GB. A small union formed hundreds of years ago whose member states are still trying to shatter it.
But.
GB is far from the nay sayer it is portrayed to be and has been shown to be far more supportive of European legislation even when it is not helpful to her citizens.
GB stands and opposes poor legislation proposed in the EU and is constantly berated for doing so. GB is usually right. The legislation is poorly defined and its consequences will be bad for all.
The rest of the EU complains that GB is being obstructive. Then implements legislation that fails.
The other side of the coin is that GB implements far more legislation than other EU nations. Irrespective of damage to our economy and populace we plough on implementing ridiculous legislation.
Other EU nations simply ignore legislation they do not like until forced to implement. The EU has to go to all sorts of expenses in the courts when some nations are refusing to be good Europeans like GB.
It is also obvious that other European nations are far more defensive of their own sovereign rights than GB.
GB has shown to be willing to give up certain rights as European members where other members vociferously defend theirs. The only real time we made any fuss was when Maggie demanded her money back from legislation that was forced (and still is) through to benefit French farmers incapable of competing in a modern farming world.
I work on the mainland and would be damaged if GB pulled out, but I believe we should.
The EU needs to be either a relaxed trading agreement or a fully committed United body.
I can not see all nations giving up sovereignty and identity for the later so the former it must be.
If you want to see how hard it would be to achieve real union then just look at GB. A small union formed hundreds of years ago whose member states are still trying to shatter it.
Comment