text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Dear The Economist
Much feud out there about cash.
It is pity renowned and yet international magazine must count each cash bills for subscription.
Not that to be impressed, and expect sending me a copy of it each week approxi. The current psyche is all about Hollywood in of all's estimations how human being can look like.
Getting back there, however if you have sale price subscription postcard you have anywhere in your office, send one to me please.
Best Wishes
Helene Isabelle Kaminsky
e: email@example.com
Interesting debates to be had.
However, surely the decision is not the be all and end all.
There are broadly 4 scenarios
Britain chooses to stay in Europe and things improve for Britain.
Britain chooses to stay in Europe and things get worse for Britain.
Britain chooses to leave Europe and things improve for Britain.
Britain chooses to leave Europe and things get worse for Britain.
Much depends on many other factors and how the UK sets about solving its
problems and reforming itself or whether it allows drift and decline.
Being in or out does not determine a nation's fate. Norway and Germany are
both fairly successful countries, one is in, the other out.
But then I suppose many sceptics will say that being in Europe makes it impossible for the UK to do what it needs to do to restore its fortunes, as ever increasing EU rules tie UK hands.
In this sense they are the really intransigent ones. For them getting out is vital and they cannot see any merit in the alternative.
Most pro Euro voices don't really predict catastrophe for a non EU Britain, they just warn that it might not be as rosy outside the club as the grumblers think it will be.
Dear sports!
I renew my recommendation that Britain would sail over the Atlantic to join her former colonies because the past decades have shown that this is what Britons wish. But I warn that the British accent would sound more hilarious and the hot water bottles less smoothing there than perhaps expected by the newcomers.
After Britain's divorce from the EU Scotland will probably form a North Atlantic Trade Union with Norway, Iceland and Faroe Islands. Best for the rest of the Kingdom would be to follow the current status of the City and join the Channel Islands.
This would also open the grand way to the restoration, the Duchy of Normandy (the Channel Islands) is owned by Her Majesty who would care and nourish her humble servants with endless freedom of corporate taxes.
On the other hand, I would be jolly happy if Britain would stay in the EU as an active member with a full diplomatic negotiating power and agenda to balance the triad with Germany and France.
I find this discussion quit amusing as an European, and would like to ask all the UK euroceptics who have made comments two questions:
1) Why did you join?
2) Why don't you leave? Nobody is stopping you.
1) The people were lied to
2) We keep getting promised a referendum tomorrow...
" Despite Canada's many similarities with the UK, outlined above, it has the freedom to conduct free trade deals while the UK, remaining in the EU, does not. Canada's trade agreement with the USA, as part of NAFTA, doesn't forbid economic association with third partners. Our EU bind does.
Perversely then, the UK is tied to an out-dated customs union in the EU, which means that we hide behind a punitive tariff wall, have no seat at the WTO, and Brussels conducts deals in our name.
This is the biggest aspect that irks me about the UK-EU relationship – economic freedom.
Europhiles say that being in a bloc makes us stronger. It doesn't when our economic views are so diametrically opposed. The EU cowers in a single market within itself. Businesses do not lift their heads above European perspectives. The CBI is myopic.
While the EU stagnates, Asia booms. It takes decades for a poly-lateral trade agreement to take place – just ask the Caribbean or members of ASEAN when dealing with the EU. Bilaterals are quicker, easier, and based on a larger amount of trust."
The people voted to join a free trading block, in affect we were lied to here right at the beginning because what we joined was a customs zone. We never had a vote on Masstricht or Nice. We were promised a vote on the European Constitution and when the Dutch the French and the Irish (IIRC) voted that they did not want to be part of a Federal Europe our politicians (shxts that they are) said well this new Lisbon Treaty is not the European Consititution so you can not have a vote. Then the leader of the Opposition (Now Prime Minister) said that is wrong if I get in to power the people will have a vote on the Lisbon Treaty, then in power he said there would be no point as it had been ratified.
So the anger of a significant percentage of the British people is of course with the EU and the loss of soverienty but also because our politicians of all parties in recent years have treated the people with contempt over Europe with a "we know better than thou attitude."
So why do we not leave "I believe we would if the people had the vote but our politicians seem to think we are better off in and have a strategy of being re-elected on getting some powers back from the Eu and saying look how I stood up to the nasty EU please reelect me. The reason they will not give us a vote is that what ever way the vote went the politicians stand to lose, they would all say vote to stay in and we will get some powers back. So if we voted out then they would lose votes at the general elections for not sharing the views of the electorate whereas if the population voted to stay in then all the people that voted no would not vote for a main stream party for a long time meaning no major party could get a majority.
So it is a case of heads you lose and tails you lose for our politicians.
PS UKIP on 16% of the vote in the latest poll. Things are moving.
1) Very poor excuse and untrue. From the very begining (1957), the purpose of the EU has always been to integrate, step by step into a deeper economic AND political union. The UK was not lied to. Though initially reluctant, it joined because it couldn't miss the opportunity of a 350 million consumers market. De Gaulle strongly opposed Britain's entry, he knew everybody would regret it. How true.
2) About the referendum: so what is your government doing? Once again, the door is wide open. The EU is based on free agreement and nobody is forcing the UK to stay. The EU is not that kind of communist dictatorship the British press loves to portray.
"It doesn't when our economic views are so diametrically opposed."
No they aren't. You want them to be opposed, but the facts clearly show that the EU and UK economic views are fundamentaly in line. (isn't the problem elswhere?)
The EU promotes freedom of trade. It got rid of its internal tariff walls and it has been increasingly lowering its external tariff walls on manufactured goods with the rest of the world for the past 45 years. It trades with all continents, including booming Asia and other BRICS, and when it does it has the bargaining power of being a 500 million consumers market. Only some agricultural and textile goods remain subsidized and by the way the very same applies to the USA, Canada and Australia.
I'm not trying to convince you that the EU is the paradise on Earth (who is?). I'm just pointing out that your "free-trade" obsession and your constant opposing the EU and the UK in everything is just not coherent with the reality.
Once again, isn't the problem elswhere? Isn't Britain somehow stuck in its own historical contradictions?
We hear this one a lot from the Europhobes, that the British people were lied to in 1975, by pro-European Margaret Thatcher amongst others, and that 67% of the electoratewere so gullible as to be taken in by it.
Whilst the right-wing tabloid press, obsessive about this issue in some cases, would not dream of printing an untrue word.
Europe in 1975 was very different politically. The EEC that the UK joined was only affluent western European countries. Greece was not a member, and we were still in the Cold War era.
I doubt whether the political leaders of the time could have foreseen the fall of the Berlin Wall a decade and a half later, or that so many of the former Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe would subsequently join. By the way, this is something that Britain encouraged, and in my opinion EU membership has ensured that none of those countries, such as Romania, have lapsed back into dictatorship.
Nobody had a crystal ball in 1975, or knew how the world, and Europe, would look in 2012. They only knew the situation as it was.
16% for UKIP in the latest opinion poll. Wow! So that means 84% not for UKIP.
1) In 1975 Brussels spent £10 million in propaganda to influence the vote through the media. To give you an idea on what the would of brought, the average house cost around £8 thousand pounds. This publication, the BBC and much of the 'still' EUrophile press got a big payout to mislead the public.
2) As I said, our politicians keep promising 'jam tomorrow', which is why they are not particuarly trusted on the subject.
An answer for your question from the Europhile BBC (basically a rerun of whatever is in the Guardian):http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20675306
The UK has very little in common with the continent, the only members that have a legal system in common are one that have a shared history with the UK.
The majority of the continent is protectionist, and run mass subsidies on top of the subsidies of the EU, with France being a prime example. They are also fixated on 'corporatism' and a large state, very different from that of the UK, 'corporatism' being a brain child of both 'socialist' theories.
Its BRICs, no country makes up the 'S', and it is worth going into since you mention it. Russia has sought the UK's opinion on free trade, Indian's are the largest immigrant group in the UK, China is looking at basing its finance in the UK and Chinese are the largest immigrant group using UK universities.
I see no threat there, only your paranoia in the suggestion that there is something to worry about. Typical continental xenophobia and extremism at the thought of competition.
You seem to have a hangup with the UK's past, I would suggest you see a shrink about it.
"The UK has very little in common with the continent, the only members that have a legal system in common are one that have a shared history with the UK."
I don't know if you travel much in continental countries or know many people there. But Britain isn't the only country in Europe with a monarchy. Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain to name but a few. Others are principalities. By contrast the USA is a republican federation of states with an elected president.
The stone and bronze ages, the Roman Empire, the spread of Christianity, the Medieval period including the Dark Ages and the Crusades, the Black Death, the Renaissance and Reformation, are all part of a shared history between Britain and its continental neighbours.
By contrast, the Commonwealth countries you are so fond of have little recorded history before about 1500.
Yes the common law system of "stare decisis" is a uniquely English concept that spread to parts of the former empire. But considering that the USA has a written constitution, and most of our own laws are now being made through parliamentary legislation, I would suggest that the distinction is much more blurred than was formerly the case.
"Europhile BBC" that seems to feature Nigel Farage (and sometimes Paul Nuttall) on Question Time or Any Questions almost every other week (yet their party has no Westminster seats).
"BRICS" I believe the "S" may be South Africa.
"Indians (no apostrophe Cutters where it's plural) are the largest immigrant group in the UK". Precisely. That's not in the EU but it's a Commonwealth country. So why then blame our EU membership entirely for the levels of immigration?
Let's say you are right, but you can leave, just do it.
It's also funny that you (UK citizens in favour of leaving the EU) are always complaining about being tied to a defunct (out dated customs union), but then you also complain about having trade deficits with a lot of EU members. I wonder if the EU is the problem or if the UK is really not up to playing in this league. Naturally if you leave you can go and compete with economies where you stand a chance.
But stop whining, if you don't like it leave, if you stay, the rules are the same for everyone, and you (the UK) voted in favour of them. I don´t think it's nice to say we agreed on the rules, but we can't handle them, so everyone else should allow us to bend them in our favour or we want play.
---"I see no threat there, only your paranoia in the suggestion that there is something to worry about. Typical continental xenophobia and extremism at the thought of competition."---
I'm not threatening anyone here, why would I? I don't feel myself in danger. Neither am I suggesting that Britain has to worry about being out of the EU. But yes I am pointing out that you accusations of the EU being anti free-trade and almost anti-freedom is just laughable. I suggest many British eurosceptics need a scapegoat to avoid looking at the UK's chronic economic turmoil and historical contradictions. And that perfect scapegoat is Europe: it's always the neighboor's fault. Without the EU, Britain would be sooo fine. This attitude is at best hypocrisy, but most probably sincere denial, I am afraid.
I have heard your "continental xenophobia and extremism" a thousand times (hey, we are on The Economist!) but do you have another more convincing argument? See, on this side of the Channel, most believe more or less the same thing about British eurosceptics and nationalists in general. It's just a matter of interpretation.
About the EU, I suggest you read this Myths/Facts page and maybe question some of your preconceived ideas about how evil is Europe. I hope this will not cause you too much cognitive dissonance:
The UK has a difference in philosophy, language (no 'male/female' words) and spent a large part of that time pre 1500 at war with various continental countries fighting off invasion.
As for the Commonwealth, that have a habit for 'fitting in':http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/100193886/where-would-the-british-army-be-without-the-sikhs/
Europeans however:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9475500/Eastern-European-criminals-blamed-for-surge-in-migrant-offences.html
Both views come from the centre right, so are 'balanced' in that regard.
The US Constitution is based in the different acts that make up the UK's constitution. The fact remains that the way the law is defined differers between the UK and most of the continent.
The BBC has been slammed by Boris and others, it is a fact that the majority that work there read the Guardian.
You seem not to know what you are talking about, as usual. It is BRIC:http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bric.asp
@ Aquitanian
That link is the handy work of the Commission, and you make a judgement call that it is somehow 'legit'. It is another propaganda piece.
"The non-binding report says "experienced media professionals" should be hired to "inform the public" of parliament's activities.
Its adoption in Strasbourg comes in the wake of recent claims by UK think tank Open Europe that the EU last year spent over €8m on entertaining, training and 'informing' journalists with €2.6m spent on transport, accommodation and sustenance."http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/parliament-accused-of-wasting-money-on-eu-propaganda/
I'm glad to see you've spent a lot of time researching newspaper articles.
But your comment was "The UK has very little in common with the continent".
So you'll know then that, despite yesterday's census results, the majority of the UK population are of European origin. Starting with the Celts, there were the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, Normans, and of course others since.
Sorry to say this, Cutters, but the English language is overwhelmingly a European language. If you look at Wikipedia you'll see that it is classified as a member of the West Germanic group of languages, and its origin is probably Anglo-Frisian (on the north German/Dutch coast) and has had its subsequently vocabulary enhanced by Viking and Norman French influence. I think you'll find it did originally have genders for inanimate objects like French and German, but they've disappeared over time.
I'll not get into the argument about whether Commonwealth immigrants in general integrate better into British society than continental Europeans, but I note your strong opinion.
All 'european' languages started in 'Eurasia', around present day Turkey.
There is nothing to back up your claim to the rest, other than English being classed as Germanic. Welsh does not have words that give a gender to inanimate objects, and 'the', or a variation of, is singular, not multiple like on the continent.
You may want to look into Brythonic languages, they as classed as Insular Celtic.
Old English is actually very close to its modern counterpart, it to does not give inanimate objects a gender. I suggest you go read the original versions of Geoffrey Chaucer.
As for those opinions, they are not ones I have stated myself but are reflected in the 'mainstream' media. They are based on evidence, and therefore fits as 'empirical' rather than just 'opinion' based.
What the UK needs when it comes to negotiations with Europe is a high-calibre, charismatic leader of men, who fights fairly for what he believes and does not say one thing only to do another. But instead, we have a weak, unimpressive PR man or, possibly, a silly buffoon. Neither of these men can be trusted to deliver what is best for the UK, as the continental leaders, quite rightly, do not take them seriously. I despair........
Trust this helps you. These are historical facts and should not be regarded as current conduct.
Special attention to British help to Portugal after Portugal refuse to endorse the Napoleon block to the UK, honouring the Windsor Treaty. The British occupied Portugal after the Peninsular war and raised the British Flag in Portuguese "courts".
Trust this will not offend you.
Methuen Treaty:
British occupation of Portugal:
British Ultimatum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_British_Ultimatum
I am afraid the choice will be between common sense and emotions. If the latter prevail, Britain would leave. If the former, it will stay. The reason is simple - Britain cannot afford the luxury of being outside EU. It is not self-sufficient.
All that British criticism of EU is correct, of course. However, I do not see how Britain is different from EU in terms of its fundamental problems:
1. Enormous debt, caused by reckless government spending to finance welfare state.
2. Risk of split up following referendum in Scotland.
3. Income disparity between North and South (in reversed form).
4. Uncontrolled immigration.
5. Disfunctional political structure.
Many would definitely disagree on the last point. However I find it funny that British MPs who (with just 3 parties in the parliamnt) cannot find a way to reform NHS and have only recently bailed out country's biggest banks mock attempts of 17 different states to create smoothly operating banking union. Do they really think they are much better in their "managerial capacity"?
Your article freely admits that many EU regulations are negative, but insists this is the price to pay for membership. The question no-one seems to be tackling, this newspaper included, is why these regulations should exist at all. It is possible, though we cannot know for sure, that these regulations would be even more damaging were it not for the restraining influence of Britain, but nevertheless the direction over the last 20 years has been toward ever less free markets. The EU seems intent on legislating itself into irrelevance. Britain's continuing membership may slow this process, but to suggest that it could reverse it is the kind of wishful thinking that has clouded our judgement virtually since we joined. You are right to say that leaving the EU would be a major gamble, but to remain in it offers only the certainty of decline. The EU needs urgent reform. As the on-going Euro crisis demonstrates, it is un-reformable. To remain in it and attempt to effect change is akin to remaining on the Titanic to bail out water.
There will be a referendum, but it will have to be 'In' or 'Out', as Brussels is getting its knickers in a twist:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9733975/David-Cameron-warned-he-cannot-dilute-EU-relationship.html
Time to cut these shackles to the corpse across the water.
To sum up the comments of the so called eurosceptics, the UK should exit the eu and reinstate the commonwealth, of course run from London, with the English Queen as head of other countries of course too. Hell, you might as well reinstate the British Empire all together. Althogh i have serious doubts as to which sovereign countries would want to be run from London.
You obviously know nothing about the Commonwealth of Nations, or how it is run, or you wouldn't make such foolish comments.
Just for your information, Her Majesty is the figurehead of the Commonwealth and has been since it was set up, and this was done with every members approval.
The only people I see around here with an obsession with the British Empire is EU supporters from the continent.
The fact that you mix up the commonwealth with the British Empire and can't tell the difference between the two, speaks volumes.
The Commonwealth only exists because Britain had an Empire. Most of the Commonwealth members are in it because they were formerly part of the Empire. The Empire was created by Britain using its military might to subjugate other peoples. Nothing democratic in that.
The Commonwealth is not just the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It has 54 members, mostly in the Third World, including some of the poorest on the planet. Can they really be alternative trading partners to Europe?
It may have its origins in the British Empire, but it's certainly no longer the "British" Commonwealth of Nations. With Britain being just one member, more than a third of its members are in sub-Saharan Africa, including states such as Rwanda and Mozambique, which have no historic link with Britain. So to suggest the Commonwealth will always take a pro-British view of world affairs seems far-fetched.
What's to say that if Britain left the EU, all these former colonies would suddenly readjust their trading arrangements to favour their former imperial master? After all, many fought hard for their independence. Most of Canada's trade is with NAFTA, Australia's with the far east, and in neither case is a high percentage with Britain. Plus from a logistical point of view, it's hardly sensible to ship goods half the way across the world when you can buy on your doorstep. (China only ovecame this by having comparatively low labour costs).
"Queen and Commonwealth". HM The Queen has done an excellent job as head of the Commonwealth, given that Britain was still at its centre when it was set up. But the position is not hereditary, many member states have since "come of age", and, given the demographics of the organisation, its next head may well come from a Third World Country, with no particular interest in the UK. Just because a country retains the British monarch as titular head of state, doesn't mean it's bound to be slavishly obedient to the Westminster government.
Hate to say it, but I can't help thinking that this preference for the Commonwealth, certainly in political, economic and military terms, is simply yearning for an irretrievable past. It wasn't even a realistic option in the 1960s. It's even less likely to be going forward.
Oh dear, you're really not up with the facts are you...
"The London Declaration of 1949, devised by Canadian prime minister Louis St. Laurent, states that the monarch, as a symbol of the free association of independent countries, is the Head of the Commonwealth. Republics—and kingdoms that are not Commonwealth realms—can recognise the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth without accepting the person as the country's head of state. When India adopted a republican constitution on 26 January 1950, it recognised George VI as the symbol of the association but no longer as India's head of state."
It goes to the next in line, it is a hereditary title.
You may want to read the following when talking about a CFTA:
We'll beg to differ on that (Commonwealth Secratariat - Head of the Commonwealth - last paragraph) but assuming you're right:
What your saying is whoever happens to be the current British monarch is automatically Head of the Commonwealth, ad infinitim, even though only 16 of its 54 members are realms, and many of its members have their own heads of state, and that this is a hereditary position?
Yet you hold this out as a shining example of a modern international organisation, whilst slating the EU for being undemocratic?
I can think of no other international organisation in the world that has, or has ever had, such an arrangement (UN, R C Church, NATO, WTO, even EU) that hasn't been an "Empire". (C of E included).
There are no powers, it is purely functionary. The running is in the hands of the elected head of the Secretariat, a 'figurehead' role or 'symbolic'.
It also works very well diplomatically, it is a rallying point behind one of the most influential people on the planet, given the size of some of the countries this is very beneficial.
The 'Commonwealth of Nations' is very democratic, as all decisions are made and agree by all or none. What is showing is your ignorance of one of the oldest and one of the largest institutions of its kind.
Yes I'm well aware of that Cutters. The Commonwealth has a Secretary General (currently Kamalesh Sharma)whose role is, I suppose, analogous to that of the UN Secretary General. But the UN doesn't have some symbolic figurehead, which begs rthe question, why does there need to be a "Head of the Commonwealth"? It could be that the position might simply be abolished after the Queen's reign. It would be for the 54 Heads of Government to decide when the time came (see Commonwealth website).
This is a very biased article - and reminds me of the dire warnings some time ago of Britain's imminent economic demise if it didn't join the euro (all of which warnings proved to be totally wrong).
The often-made argument that Britain would lose influence in the world if it was not a member of the EU makes little sense. If the basis of that argument is that being inside the EU enables us to influence EU policies, that just holds no water: as history shows clearly, Britain has little influence on EU policies.
If, alternatively, the argument is that by being a member of the EU, we gain by the EU having a major block's influence in the world, this is equally unfounded in reality: whenever there has any major foreign policy issue in the world, EU member states have always pursued their own policies - conflicting with each other. The Iraq war is an obvious example.
Thus, since the EU nation states always pursue their own national interests in foreign policy, the EU never speaks with one voice on important foreign policy issues - and that is not going to change.
For this reason, the EU has not been able to speak with one voice in major foreign policy issues - and thus the claim that Britain would benefit by being a member of a block with major influence in the world is self-evidently untrue.
Another fundamental weakness of this argument is that, contrary to the fond dreams of EU leaders, the EU - even it were to ever present a united opinion on foreign policy issues - has steadily reducing influence in the modern world. It is perceived - correctly - as a declining part of the world, with an steadily declining share of world trade and world economic output. Its only real clout comes in its ability to regulate import duties into the EU - but that clout itself is steadily declining as Germany depends increasingly on exports outside the EU - and thus is less and less willing to damage those exports by imposing higher tariff barriers to those countries exporting to the EU.
Finally, many of the most important countries in the EU are up to their eyeballs in debt, and are suffocating under the enormous burdens of their welfare state expenses - expenses which make many European countries internationally increasingly uncompetitive. Europe is - correctly - seen as being an area of the world that is in decline, and which may well soon crash under the weight of its no longer affordable welfare states.
Does hitching ourselves to an steadily declining part of the world, a block awash with regulations that make it increasingly uncompetitive in the world, make sense?
As for the argument that trade with the EU would be damaged by leaving the EU: Britain has a large trade deficit with the EU. Whilst it is true that the UK does not represent a vitally important market for any individual EU country, the EU would, nevertheless, lose by imposing any significant tariffs on UK exports - as even the spineless tory and labour 'leaders' would impose identical import duties on EU sales to the UK.
Britain is a trading nation - and currently, we suffer many restrictions in our trading relations with non-EU countries: and many of these countries are those with (unlike EU countries) high growth rates.
It is time for the UK to stop having its dealings with the EU set by fear. The EU - and the euro - are going to crash, sooner rather than later, under their vast burdens of debt. We should un-hitch from this bloc which of ever less importance in the world, and remember that most countries of the world are independent; they sell to the EU; and many of them get on perfectly well without being a member of a bloc.
Just so we know what it is the UK is looking at getting out of:" Three days after picking up the peace prize, Mr Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, who chairs monthly EU summits, will table a plan for "complete economic and monetary union" to be discussed by Europe's leaders in Brussels on Thursday.
Among proposals for new banking regulations is a "roadmap" to a political union where eurozone countries will lose the right to set their own budgets and end up surrendering economic sovereignty to the EU.":http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9732847/Nobel-Peace-Prize-We-will-come-out-crisis-stronger-than-ever-says-EU-president.html
Some interesting facts regarding British trade figures for 2011.
1) Britain has free trade with Germany through EU.
British exports to Germany = 27 billion
British imports from Germany = 41 billion
British trade deficit with Germany = over 14 billion
2)Britan has no free trade with the USA
British expors to USA = 31 billion
British imports from USA = 25 billion.
British trade surplus with USA = 6 billion.
Conclusion: Without even a free trade pact with the USA, Britain has larger exports to the USA and enjoys a trade surplus with the USA.
Britain is in the wrong free trade zone.
And these are relative numbers, considering the fact that the US economy is a lot bigger than the German?
Considering the fact Britain has no free trade pact with the USA.....
Only partly.
You are comparing apples to oranges, especially when it comes to the British export:
The US have a giant trade deficit with practically everyone. Unlike Germany.
The US have an economy FIVE TIMES as big as Germany. No wonder the figures are high.
Considering the fact Britain has no free trade pact with the USA.....
Errr... Error?
Considering the fact Britain has no free trade pact with the USA........
Definitely error.
Wait some years and EU will have a free trade agreement with US too.. And even sooner with Canada. It could go faster if UK government tried to improve EU instead of blackmailing everyone.
In some years, EU will have free trade agreements with most central and south american countries, all north africa and south-east asia. Maybe with India too.
British euro-septic like to think themselves preacher of the free market. But they are leaving the biggest institution promoting it.
Yes, some things have to be reformed (PAC, some institutions, etc). But stop complain and act. To leave EU like you wish is only about protectionism and fear.
Just as Denmark and later Sweden and Finland followed the UK into the EU and considering the growing discontent with the EU within these three countries, my bet is that they will follow suit, should the UK decide to leave the EU. That would also further the cause of Scandinavian (or nordic, if you like) cooperation, which has much deeper roots in these countries than their EU membership. They could all become members of the EEA. Ofcourse, with the EEA growing so much bigger, the terms of the realtionship between the EEA and the inner core of the EU would have to be renegotiated. Other countries just outside the borders of the EU, might then be included into the EEA, such as Turkey, Ukraine and N-Africa. The Europeans badly need the solar energy, which could be cabled accross the Mediterranean from the Sahara. Maybe Russia and other former Soviet republics besides Ukraine might also become included in the EEA.
You would lose your bet...
The swedish, danish and finnish population, political establishment and businesses are broadly pro-EU and they trade much more with the other EU members than with the UK. Their interests lie inside not outside.
All in all, I highly doubt they would follow the UK.
About 16 to 17 years ago, to be more precise in 1995, Sweden was bankrupted. A large majority of citizens voted for EU integration, and Sweden has soon recovered from a massive financial, economic and social distress. It is a matter of years, Swedish people voting to join Euro Area. The European banking union towards the ultimate political union is irreversible. All is in the hands of UK citizens. Tackling huge domestic problems with foreign policy threats (please, do not forget the enormous, billionaire, British cheque, or UK rebate) due to fiscal consolidation problems it's no a means to an end, should add the increasing wave for Scottish separatism (and who's next?). No country, not even Norway, will confidently rejoin UK's leave following the same steps. You are now facing a poker bid, and citizens are not aware of its consequences, because it's, like the financial roulette, casino politics. You should know how to tame this fierce and wild populist sentiment. After the decision, there's no way back.
Looks like the line is being drawn:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9732677/David-Cameron-to-offer-inout-referendum-on-EU-Boris-says.html
The Franco-German axis is over, Germany is looking to keep the UK on board and is willing to compromise with the UK, rather than being left with the French.
you must be crazy or you can't read a text in your own language.
a.) Boris J. said that Cameron would make a promise, nothing more, nothing less. He is putting push to the MP, that's it.
b.) Why you believe that Germany would be interested into renegotation to hold the UK inside the EU is really above my head. Now we would like to have the UK as a counterweight but sorry you are really overestimating your own value bigtime.
A) Boris has basically tied Cameron's hands, a referendum could happen before then on 'banking union' regardless of a promise, the only way out is a leadership contest that would probably put Gove or Fox in charge.
B) Without the UK 'in' at all, the EU would end up an isolated protectionist mess, a 'pariah' on the world stage and shunned by the markets. This is why the German are willing to bend, and are holding on tight to the UK to keep it in the club.
yes if you repeat it often enough it will get real. The EU will become the PARIAH of the world and the UK will get the new superpower of free trade.
Possibby you should look up what *Free Trade* is. As it seems except of big blahblah there is nothing from your mouth.
*Free Trade* is everything but not free.
IT is well known that France and the south is protectionist, and do you really think the rest of the world will wear it?
The UK is an import destination for just about everything. There is no reason why France or German cars should get preferential treatment over others, or wines and other produce for that matter.
How long do you think you can subsidise your produce against the world market? The rest of the world will simply find others to do business with.
What the EU currently practices is considered 'dumping' if one looks at the WTO legislation close enough, all it takes is for a few countries to get together, and the EU would be in real trouble.
my oh my, are you using your brain from time to time or are you repeating something.
a.) Yes, the French are more protectinist, but doesn't mean the French will get their way ever.
b.) On preferential tr4eaments of germa/french goods for importation, where in hell are you reading something likle that.
This article and the discussion thereon is on preferential treatment for britsh goods into the common market.
The question is not why we should have a free trade agreement with you if you leave, but why you believe you are subject to one with us.
And if you think the world will do business with other, now possibly you have not seen this sofar, there are about 75 to 80 % on world business which is having nothing to do with the EU.
The EU stands only for about 20 to 25 % of world GDP. So get that nations together , much luck to that -- I mean it was only taking the european nations - what 60 year, to reach the level of free trade we have now.
Possibly you will get some together in what 5 years, 10 years. Possibly you don't get it but the EU goes to big strain to stay inside the WTO rules.
Doesn't mean that function everytime, but all in all it does.And it is a little bit difficult to fight someone who plays by the rules. Now you can cheat or you can become powerful enough to change the rules as you like them.
Hopefully you get the USA and China on one desk, possibly together with India and Brasil and than, of course, you will be there and can declare the EU defeated.
Possibly they will give you trhe right to do so, much more you will not get from them, as the agreements will not see much of the fifth wheel at the car.
As said -- much luck, you will need it.
You seem to be trying to dictate terms of the conversation, typical really of a fanatical follower of the EU.
It is more than likely that France and the south will get its way, there are subsidies in it for the eastern 'territories'.
There is just as much for the UK to gain by putting up barriers to the UK in terms of trade, then there is harm to the UK of the EU putting up barriers.
In terms of the WTO, the EU does not fully comply, and the UK along with the USA et al could force humiliation on the EU.
In terms of trade, the Commonwealth is bigger and has a bigger share in global GDP than the EU, and is set to dominate.
You need to remove those blinkers, the EU is just a bit player and its role is decreasing all the time, like its beggar role at the IMF just goes to show.
Sorry Cutters the only fanatic here is yourself. The other one seem to be a computer program with errors.
Now the Commonwealth is bigger in persons and some of that nations are also developing much quicker than the EU, that's for sure.
Now if you believe France ands the South will get their way, you must be completely blinded. Also in the EU the people paying the price are the ones telling the story.
Now the newsx that the Commonwealth GDP is bigger than the EU is new to me, now it will be in years to come but if you believe that the nations there are all only waiting for the old british way of, I buy your cheap natual ressources and sell you alll my made stuff back for high profit. Now Australia is more inclined to get on the good side of China.
They are really interested in the UK, but live your wishful thinkin patter. Discussion with you is not possible.
Answers on clear defined questions from you are not coming -- Sir, you are a well known troll. Now at least you aren't a computerprogram and discussion with you is only taking place to show the rest that you are a troll - from time to time.
In termas of the WTO I were stating that hte EU is confirming mostly. What is there to not been understood with that word? Mostly doesn't mean everytime -- sure there are parts nations can draw the EU in front of the WTO, but mostly everyone can be taken in front of the WTO.
The question is if someone will gain something thereby.
Yes the EU is beggearing at the IMF, the EU is using it's rights. It could easily do so, but why should the EURO nations do so.
Will it lower its standing with the rest, sure it will. But who cares.
You Sir are - same as that computerprogram with eroors - been PLONKED.
Given that you have no idea on half of what is being discussed, you are the one 'tolling' my comments.
Your response is also very typical of the fanatical 'pro-EU' lobby with its totalitarian 'blinkered' outlook.
There is a commitment by all members of the Commonwealth to create a FTA, this commitment dates to 2005 during the meeting on Malta.
Here is some hard facts for you:"The Queen's Diamond jubilee was celebrated throughout the Commonwealth in 2012. With the 40th anniversary of Britain's membership of the EU due on January 1st 2013, now is perhaps a good time to review the relative economic performance of these two important UK trading partners: the Eurozone & the Commonwealth.
This paper shows that the Commonwealth (on the original EU 1973 definition) has already overtaken the European Union in its percentage share of world GDP, and will soon overtake the Eurozone as measured by its current definition.":http://www.worldeconomics.com/papers/Commonwealth_Growth_Monitor_0e53b963-bce5-4ba1-9cab-333cedaab048.paper?PaperID=0E53B963-BCE5-4BA1-9CAB-333CEDAAB048
I think that we, in the European Union, are in a similar position to America in 1786. At that time America was a confederation of independent states. The government of the union was totally at the mercy of the member states. It could print money but it was useless, it could borrow but not pay it back. It could levy taxes but could collect them many states paid little and Georgia paid none at all. It could not remove foreign troops on its own soil. Instead of tinkering with their confederation as we do every five years in Europe the Americans began from first principles and created a new constitution fit for their purpose.
We should do the same. Each state should elect, say, five representatives to a time-limited convention whose sole task would be to draft a constitution for the European Union that would be acceptable to the populations of the majority of states and the majority of the European population as a whole via referendums. The governments of each state would only be able to watch. There would be no opt outs. Clearly, this convention would be wise to find common ground among as many Europeans as possible.
It is possible, indeed some would say likely, that the British would vote no in the initial referendum (it might not be alone in this – other European peoples might do the same). However, those states that find themselves outside the next stage of the Union would be given time to think again and have a further referendum. There would be no negotiation – the British could choose to be in or out. For instance, if all the other peoples voted for the new Union (which might have one currency, one passport, one foreign policy etc) the British would have to adopt the euro and allow free migration if they wanted to remain inside. This stark choice would change the debate. The British might even decide to remain within the Union but I would not bet my life on it. The debate continues at www.publius.org.uk.
Well, it seems it is indeed the only way out but as the EU is ruled by unanimity I assume that will never happen unless Europeans grow tired of that....When the Constitutional Treaty was rejected by the French, for other reasons,a nd the Dutch,in 2005 I believethe other EU states should have move forward leaving no other option but to vote again or leave the UE!
Europe should end all the opt outs. You are in or you are out - your choice. The convention that I mention above (http://www.publius.org.uk) would undoubtedly begin with a minimalist constitution but unanimity would have to be abolished. The American constitution was agreed in 1788. For over two years Rhode Island refused to ratify it. It was only after the other twelve states threatened sanctions (at the mild end, taxes on imports and at the extreme end, military intervention) did Rhode Island accede to become a member of the United States of America. Government cannot function for long on the basis on unanimity – I am amazed that Europe has done so for so long. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was once the largest country in Europe but its constitution required unanimity. It could not agree even when being attacked by its neighbours: Austria; Prussia and Russia. It eventually disappeared.
In 1786, the USA was overwhelmingly of British heritage - 70%, had one language-English, one culture-Anglo, one legal system-British common law.
Very different from the EU of today.
You are correct in saying that there is a significant difference between America then and Europe now. However, in those days religion was a far greater influence than today. Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania Quaker, Massachusetts Puritan - several states were formed as religious reactions against others - Connecticut from Massachusetts and Rhone Island from both.
Not all the Atlantic colonies agreed on independence – New Brunswick, East Florida and Nova Scotia did not want to follow the others and were invaded in order to persuade them to join the rebellion.
The English language was common across America but in Europe this year – for the first time – over half the population can converse in English (It is likely that any future president of Europe would have to feel comfortable giving speeches in English).
Agreed, Europe is split by the basis of its legal framework – some states being based on English common law and that has been a problem.
Perhaps the biggest problem is that some peoples way loyalty over freedom and others freedom over loyalty – although even that difference has been melting in recent decades.
You still don't seem to get it, despite the religious differences, they were of overwhelming one heritage-British, one language, one culture , one legal system.
Very very different from the EU of today.
And I hate to burst your bubble but English is more widely spoken in the former colonies of the British Empire in Asia and Africa than in the EU.
However this does not mean Asian & African countries can form a federal union together based on a common SECOND language.
The carmakers that use Britain as their European operations base would gradually drift away
What utter tosh - car makers would leave the UK only if there are duties and tariffs imposed on the UK by the EU making cars produced here harder to sell over...which they wouldn't dare when they have such a big surplus in trade with the UK - many more jobs in the EU are created by exports to the UK than in the UK with exports to the EU.
There will be a free trade deal with the UK in the event of an exit GUARANTEED. And with the EU turning into paupers with these constant bailouts those deficits are only going to get bigger as it gets harder and harder to sell to the UK.
You don't get it, do you? The EU would do nothing at all. At thew moment the UK would leave the EU all inter-european laws would be automatically nullified.
The UK would become a normal WTO nation which than would be subject to tariffs as per EU customs regualtions, so yes, mostly every good coming from the UK into the EU would be falling under this customs regulations - similar to the USA, which has also a big deficit against the EU as far as I know.
That means *cars* would get a customs tariff of 0,0% but bearings would get one of 8,0 %.
Customs tariff code for cars is 87.03 and for bearings is 84.82 if you want to check yourself.
But that si only one part of the calcualtion, at the moment the regulatons for Intrahandel would arise (INTRAHANDEL - is business inside the EU) - hte menaing is that you prepare an ninvoice by EU regulations and thats it, transportation of goods is been done on the same standard as inside ones own nation.
So selling something from UK to Europe falls under the same regulations as selling something from London to Newcastle. On top there are some regulations on payment on taxes to make sure that nobody swindles on VAT.
In the case of leaving the EU the UK would fall back onto the lowest equalisor - which means all transportation from the UK to Europe would loose on at the time frames, loss will be ion the area of 24 hours so something which now needs 24 to 48 hours to get onto continental market will than need 48 to 72 hours, which in modern logistics is a real drop as stuff is been accounted for by hours and somtimes minutes onhe completelogistical chain.
So they will want us to impose the same tariff back for all the goods they sell us? Are you mad? How will Frau Merkel and Monsieur Hollande explain that to their electorates when they are laid off? During the EU exit interview the UK is more than entitled to ask for the same tariffs as someone in the EU as it would be more in the EU's interests than the UK's.
No I am not mad. I am telling you what the laws says. If you leave you start by zero, nothing more, nothing less.
That means you are at the same standard as lets say the USA. If you are calling for tariffs on european goods that is your decision but for goods been sold into the EU you reach the standard of a so name *third country*.
That is the worst there is. From thereon you can negiotate better deals.
But tariffs are only the one side of the disadvantages, if you leave you are automatically falling under customs regulation, meaning all goods coming into the EU have to be custsoms declared.
That has nothing to do with mad or not being mad. That are the laws-- you are in or you are out. When you are out you can negiotate better deals for access.
But that needs time and I would not await a to good receiving by some of the EU nations. Normal timeframe is years.
Only to sign the carta for inter-european acceptance of better standards of origin (meaning it was easier to show of the origin for acceptance of lower tariffs) was taking nearly a year.
Top make that understandable, all the nations in the EU/EEA and AFTA were needing nearly a year to sign the ratification of that carta which before was taking years to develop.
And if you believe the rest of the EU will let you stay inside when you have voted *Out* for much longer sorry than you must be the one called *mad*
For your infor -- nobody has the same tariffds with the EU as nations inside the EU.
The minimum for nations in EEA/EFTA is that they provide documentation showing the origin of goods to reach that tariif of 0.0 %. And than that goods still fall under customs regulations which still need time.
Only one nation is excepted herefrom, that is TURKEY, where they only need to show off that goods are in free circulation inside of Turkey.
If goods from USA are been imported in NORWAY and than been sold to any EU Country there is still the normal customs tariif for goods coming into existance.
The only exception as said is TURKEY. If the US goods got customs cleared there they will automatically been seen as customs free, as long as the so named A.TR 1 is included in the documentation. But you need this also for pure turkish goods.
"What utter tosh - car makers would leave the UK only if there are duties and tariffs imposed on the UK by the EU making cars produced here harder to sell over..."
You are missing the most crucial point: Safety certification.
Currently, all UK car manufacturing plants have what is called "plant certification" for EU safety standards which means all cars manufactured there only require type certification (one certification per model).
Even the best scenario, all these plants must re-apply for plant certification at the moment Britain leaves the EU. For those manufacturers with existing plants in Mainland Europe, it would be much simpler for those manufacturer to simply shift the lines there than to go through the recertification process.
The UK joined the EEC ('Economic' is in there) because trade outside EEC countries (mostly with the Commonwealth) was in sharp decline. Today, trade with the EU is declining, it is growing with non-EU countries, and that's perfectly normal: Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries are growing, whereas the EU-member states are known to be 'the sick man of the world'. Bilateral trade deals with countries is impossible today: Brussels decides for London. Outside the EU, bilateral trade deals would be possible, with Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, but also Canada, the US, India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, South Korea... there's a whole world out there. The UK would decide what to do with its taxes, benefits, labour market and budget. Don't worry, the Eurostar would still run, the Channel Tunnel won't close down! Last point: take New Zealand. Barely 4 million people, a developed country, belonging to the 'West', part of no greater political/economic organisation (ANZUS is strictly military), and I believe the country as a whole is prosperous (in fact, I know it is). So all that talk about 'isolation' and 'hovering about in Mid-Atlantic' is frankly scare-talk.
but bilateral deals with Germany, France, Italy and Sweden would not be possibly.
Deals with the rest of the world would be, but why you believe you would be better of is really above my head.
And if you believe all that is scare-talk, as said before: ByeBye, but if you leave please stay outside.
Why you believe that you could get a better deal when discussing something with Mexico than the EU would is really astonishing.
If you believe Mexico will be more interested to get a special deal with the UK than with the EU or that the UK would set the standards of business in this case is really astonishing. The EU would still set the standard as the the EU is still a much bigger fish in the pond.
Only point is that the UK would not sit at the table when the standards are been set. I would be very sorry as there are enough spots where Germans would like to work more with the UKL than with France, but as it is we would be better off, if theUk is gone.
On your case of Europe the *sick man of the world*, how funny - 10 years ago Germany was the *sick man of Europe*.
Now if you really believe such crap you really have no understanding on economics. If you would look up facts you will find out, that mostly everyone on the world is at least in similar areas. The USA is much worse off than the EU - the EU is only not interested to fight a PR war.
The rest of the world is in similar area, China depending on production, getting a GDP rise of 10% by destroyiong it*s enviroment in similar areas.
India, now that is a basketcase by itself, Southern America depends mostly on exports of natural ressources - something similar can be said mostly everywhere.
Sorry that *sick man of the world* is PR and nothing more. Sure there are bad spots inside the EU but overall it is living inside it's own means without destroying all it depends on.
Not to be seen in most of the rest on this planet and if that means we are the *sick man* I think that should be taken as a sign of proudness.
If you think Europe and the Eu is in decline you possibly shoudl take a second look.
@Darion X: First, 'we' don't discuss trade deals with non-EU countries, the DG Trade in Brussels does it for us.
Second, yes the world as a whole is slowing down, but some slow down more than others; India, Argentina, Brazil, are by European standards in full growth. For Greece and the euro to be referred to in countries of Latin America or South-East Asia by serious newspapers in a slightly pejorative tone, I can assure you, the EU is the sick man of the world; you're free of adding the US. As for Latin America, your point is ridiculous: they prosper thanks to natural resources exportation. Because that's not real prosperity, compared to financial industry. It's like saying Qatar is not rich, it's just the oil...
Third, as for everything else, trade is a competition. The EU is not the best competitor, by far (see the CAP, which has ruined free agricultural export potential); the UK would definitely benefit doing its own trade deals. The lack of extra-regulation would appeal to non-EU countries.
Fourth, the UK trade share with the rest of the EU is in sharp decline, wheras it is steadily rising with the rest of the world. The opposite occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, which was why the UK 'gave up' on Commonwealth trade to enter the EEC...
Fifth, you talk of the US; you should mention Australia or New Zealand; how horrific it is to be a developed country not part of any economic/political greater zone in this globalised world!
Sixth, Europe living within its means??? We gave that up forty years ago! Well, some countries have recovered from it, I'll give you that.
Seventh, countries play on the divisions within the EU to get the best trade deals possible. This was most clear with China, and you know it. Te fact is the EU may be the giant in the pond, but it has feet of clay. And clay doesn't stand strong for long, especially in a pond.
Finally, I believe it is best to be one country and make 80-85% of our own decisions, rather than being part of a great conglomerate and count for 10-15% of all decisions. But that's a matter of opinion.
now first a.) who do you think *Brussel* is? And first b.) I were responding to your statement that you could do bilateral agreemens with Germany etzc which si not possible as you state yourself. That is been done in Brussel.
On second a) that nations are expoliting themselves to have growth but only if that money is sensefully been invested do you get real growth the rest is only some makeup. Now b.) if financials are really growth on that we would both disagree I think.
On third now CAP is one of the worst problems in the EU that I give you, but why do you think most people wouldn't agree onto this, but instead of going into a real discussion, building support for their POVC bristish politcians go in in the mst bullish way. We will not accept anything else than what we demand, now politcis (and democraty BTW) doesn't function that way.
Fourth can not say that, have no data how much of the goods and services been produced are been send inside the EU and how much you buy from the EU.
Fifth hmm, firsat how much of Australian goods is natural ressources and how much can the UK produce? Now New Zealand is by fact much more like the UK.
An isle nation (land: 267,710 sq km / 4,327,944 (July 2012 est.))as is the UK (land: 241,930 sq km / 63,047,162 (July 2012 est.)) as per CIA worldbook.
Now most of New Zealand is still nature and New Zealnad live on and by that *nature*, that is something else than the UK can say of itself.
On both nations can you tell me where they set standards in international business or why you believe the UK would get better deals with them than the EU would?
On sixth I were saying the EU the one or other nation. The deficit of the complete EU against foreign nations is over the years very low. That means insiede ones means.
Yes there are nation with abig external deficit as there are other with an external plus, but all in all it is more or les in the *zero* area.
Seventh yes nations or institutins do that, but wouldn't it not make more sense to look after that deficits?
On China getting the better deal, now thesy get this better deal as long as they aren't pissing of the EU to much. China and the USA have declared that they aren't accepting the flight derective for CO2 output, now it will be only about 8 weeks to see if the EU standsa by it's word.
If it does than no chinese airline will get any further landing rights in Europe for the forseen future and by the Americans it will depend.
Your point is that the EU is there to get plaid with, but you oversee one point. It is only solong been plaid with as it let others play their games.
Now if you believfe that is different for the UK after leaving the EU that is your good right. Now I don't beleive you are right, but that is my good right.
The top 3 export markets for Britain in 2011 were
1) USA = 31 billion
2) Germany = 27 billion
3) France = 18 billion.
Even without a free trade pact with the USA, Britain's largest export market was the USA. Britain has a free trade with Germany and France and yet it exported more to the USA.
Imagine how British exports to the USA will look like with a free trade pact with the USA?
The USA has a free trade pact with Australia and now New Zealand wants one too and Obama has agreed to negotiate a free trade deal with New Zealand.
The USA and Canada have been trading freely with each other through NAFTA.
It appears English speaking countries find it easier to implement free trade pacts with each other because of similiar commerical laws, common language etc.
I don't think USA or Canada will have any problems with a free trade deal with Britain through NAFTA given the deep economic ties between Britain and North America.
They would even welcome a free movement of peoples between UK and North America given the huge numbers of Brits living on the other side of the pond. There is a reason why Britain suffered the largest number of deaths in 9/11 after the USA.
Link for Britain's export figures.
As a lawyer, I can say that leaving the EU would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to our country since WWII. The absolute worst.
People asking for this need to be ignored. They do not realise how important the EU is or the huge number of areas that the EU has competence. Withdrawing would be an impossibility. It would change just about EVERY AREA of law I can think of, baring criminal law. EVERYTHING.
These lunatics must be silenced until they understand. We need to compete on the world stage. We need the four freedoms, we need EU integration and we need the EU's teleological approach.
Please Economist, do not even put this on your front cover. You will just give more lunatics the idea that this is a possibility.
Tell them that they will lose their cheap yearly holiday to Ibiza and Benidorm. That will shut them up.
"We need the four freedoms"..
Is the EU propaganda machine now taking credit for FDR's four freedoms?
No. We have the ECHR to handle our Human Rights. The four freedoms are the free movement of goods, people, services and capital.
Since Americans don't know what Human Rights are, I shall briefly distinguish them for you. Basically they are minimum rights of each human being; including a right to life, right to privacy, freedom of speech, right to have a family and to have property - to name but a few. We are not allowed to go around with hand guns shooting each other.
So that is the difference. Hope I cleared that up.
"We are not allowed to go around with hand guns shooting each other."
Has anybody informed Anders Brevik?
"Since Americans don't know what Human Rights are."
This sentence is quite amusing considering the fact that the reason you have human rights today is because of the blood of 19 & 20 year old America boys who are buried in military cemetaries all over Europe.
Ano no the Soviets didn't bring human rights to anybody, they merely replaced the nazis with a stalinist dictatorship. Just aske the Poles, Hungarians etc.
As I expected. American responses always operate like this:
(a) Revert to WWII
(b) If that doesn't work, revert to 1783
(c) If that doesn't work, revert to Jesus
You didn't answer my question.
Has anybody informed Anders Brevik?
As I expected when EU propaganda is exposed, their response is attack attack attack...
Oh you were serious? I thought you were joking:
I thought the article made this clear.
The average age of the American GI who landed in Normandy was 19 years old.
You will of course pardon us if we refuse to take lectures on human rights from a continent were we have to go in every few decades to put down one of its homegrown genocidal tyrants.
The last one was in the 1990's when a tin pot dictator from Serbia went crazy with ethnic cleansing and genocide-Sebrencia.
As it is, we will be glad if you add Freedom from ethnic cleansing and genocide to that list of 4 freedoms because continental Europe seems to need it very badly.
Can you also kindly let us know in advance when we will have to come in next to put down one of your homegrown genocidal tyrants? Is it Hungary or Romania maybe with hatred of Roma whipped up and violence against Roma that is depressingly so familiar. Yes we have seen this movie before haven't we?
Ok but has anybody informed all those people who were involved in school shootings in Germany and Finland.
Serbia et al. are not in the EU either.
Perhaps I should start grouping Americans and Mexicans together for good measure too (although as I understand it, the distinction is largely irrelevant these days, anyway)
Hungary and Romania are in the EU.
Has the EU informed the Greeks about ECHR and all that jazz about the four freedoms?
With Golden Dawn beating up immigrants and God knows what else they are doing, one wonders.
I understand Greece is an EU member of long standing.
You Sir obviously do not believe in democracy, so what are the population too stupid to do next, elect politicians? Yes lets have a dictatorship, the smartest lawyer must be dictator and tell the people what they can and can not do.
The people may be stupid in your view but if they want to leave then that is their right to chose and accept the consequences.
Anything else to offer instead of mudslinging?
How many pupils were massacred in school shootings in the US or in Canada? Seems to be an American-Canadian "inventive" both countries cannot be proud of - can they.
As regards that topic - you should be very, very calm.
In my view school shootings are much to regrettable and thus no subject to be referred to
in any ways you did. You should have left some or any respect and moreover sympathy - shouldn't you. What kind of child have your parents raised?
You draw parallels that are out of question - absolutely.
Sherryblack: "Has anybody informed Anders Brevik?
As I expected when EU propaganda is exposed, their response is attack attack attack..."
Breivik =Norway = EU ?!?
LOL. Looks like another case of "Iran, Iraq... all those names! What's the difference?"
"Ok but has anybody informed all those people who were involved in school shootings in Germany and Finland."
All those people?
firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population:
Finland: 3.64
Germany: 1.1
You don't understand the meaning of this article. This is not about democraty or not-democraty.
It is about people understanding what they would vote *No or Yes* on. The problem is the most british seem to have no understanding what the EU is.
Ansd they will be very astonished when thewy find out what they will gain and have lost.
>"These lunatics must be silenced until they understand."
This person doesn't understand the fundamental principles of Western liberal society, a free debate, rational discourse, and freedom of speech.
"Silenced". How?
@Michael Catalano: why be so insulting and extreme? 'Silenced until they understand'? And it is precisely because we (or should I say I) know al the areas in which the EU has competence that I claim we need to leave, and I dare say I know the EU a good deal batter than you do. Or do you believe the UK is now incapable of ruling itself? You do know that 97% of countries worldwide rule themselves that way, don't you? I agree with you that we need to compete worldwide. Staying in the EU forces us to remain part of the 'sick men of the world'. Europe is in decline, the world is growing (summed up in a few lines). Of course there would be disadvantages for our trade if we leave the EU, but only with the EU, a trade share which is declining rapidly. UK global trade would benefit, and you know that perfectly well. As for law, you know very well the UK won't have to redefine law if it leaves the EU. A lazy option would be to just keep all that has already been done in that field and in others. As a conclusion, I would say you are not a lunatic. You are a bright, smart, intelligent man. Nonetheless, on this, you are wrong.
@Darion X: I spend a lot of time 'on the continent', and I can asssure you that in France, there is absolutely no debate about the EU whatsoever. The Brits know much more about it than do the French or even the Germans; I believe this is why Brits want to leave, something they didn't want a few years back, when they really had no idea about it. I guarantee that if the French knew more about the EU, they would want to leave too. The march on Versailles on 5th October 1789 against Louis XVI was nothing compared to what that 'march on Brussels' would be.
You do realise that the EU is a democracy. Whoever we vote for here goes to represent us in Europe.
Most members of the executive are on the Council.
Our MPs are also MEPs.
Voting is based on size of the population, the UK being one of the largest.
Failing to see the problem??
You say that the EU is in decline yet you then state that the best strategy is to pull out and hasten its death.
I'm sure that will work wonders for us.
I'm sure the US will just come running to the rescue, not that they have bigger issues pointing eastward across the pacific. What can we possibly offer or do to them? You expect the UK to put pressure on the USA and BRICs etc all by itself? Please trade with us! We have a great service industry! Buy our insurance, equities (which will diminish) and bonds (many more of those to come!)
What are the other options??
(i) EEA: still have to pay, but lose all the power
(ii) EFTA: will never work. You honestly expect 26 nations to which we just gave an economic death sentence, to implement excessive regulatory measures like they did with the Swiss? We wont even become a party to the Schengen agreement! You honestly think we will be welcomed to pick and choose the best bits from these people we have just ruined?
Again, PLEASE THINK.
What are your proposals for removing the four freedoms? I hope you aren't infringing people's Human Rights to a family, home or business in withdrawing from the EU!
What are your proposals for competition law matters? You going to build and implement a huge nice new shiny building for the extended OFT to replace the Commission? I hope you have the money for that! What's that? A cartel in France destroying a large part of our economy? Sorry you have no competence there.
I hope all those people with European trade marks don't bring countless judicial reviews against the government for rendering their property worthless.
I'm sure nobody will complain about the investments they have made implementing WEEE and other Hazardous Waste Directives.
But hey, don't worry. WE HAVE OUR SOVEREIGNTY, as part of a NOW DEFUNCT CONTINENT. Congratulations to you!
Now I can read english and I can tell you that I am watching this *discussion* for years and sorry you really don't know anything about the EU.
To know something about a a matter means I have to look up the pro and contra, I have to look up the positive and the negative sides of something.
That si something not to be seen in the UK, so sorry you have no discussion at all.
As a German I have a quit well understanding of the negative sides of the EU. The EU is by fact the most un-democratic or the most democratic institution on this planet. It depends how you define democraty.
As a German I am interested to rise the positive impact of the EU as much as possible and lower the negative side, but - and there is the difference to the UK - we also know that not everything will be in our advantage.
Sometimes we will loose, now by being one of the bigger nations and putting a lot of money in we also know that by fact we have a bigger voice therein than many others, but we aren't, historically spoken, not interested to insult the rest so often we push under our powerline.
That has two positive factors, we are not been seen as the bully and soemtimes we are wrong in our findings so we listenh to what other have to tell.
You say in France is no debate on the EU, now I can't read french so I can not confirm but I would think as they refused the *constitution* they had their part of discussion.
Now possibly they are at most been ok/happy with what is going on in Brussel - ever thought that could be the case?
Could it be that you underestimate teh French?
On the point of the konwlegde in the UK on the EU, sorry you overestimating it by a big number.
The genereal discussion here shows that clearly. Oh, there is a big discussion in UK on the short comings of the EU, that's for sure but nothing on the positive effects.
Words like, if we only could set our own working standards, if we could only set our own payment standards show it clearly.
The USA has all that and still all that industrial companies were leaving - to China mostly. The standards there are so low that you never could reach them or you have to become China.
Much luck, at the moment companies from Europe invest in Western Africa because they are cheaper than China and the time for transport is dropping.
Now the UK is much nearer than West Africa so you at least could work for the same prices as China. Now at least if you destroy your enviroment you can do it on the same pricelevel as China.
The question is that you need a discussion what you will get our of leaving and what you would loose. Than you have a discussion - that is not the case in the UK. You discuss what you believe you would gain.
You don't discuss what that gain would be but what you believe it will be. Doesn't mean it could not come to that, but I would be very careful thereon.
Are you really believing that all your *we will give you a vote* politican aren't doing so out of empty air? They have a very well understanding what the will gain and loose.
One thing they will loose is the scapegoat -- the EU is to be blamed. The EU was demanding this or that. Now everything the EU was demanding was been agreed upon by your government first.
Now if something goes well it was of course the great british government and if something is bad it's the EU.
That is your discussion level in the UK and as a German I am astonished everytime something new comes up.
From your comment, it seems that the reason that you say it would be the worst thing imaginable to leave the EU is that 'it would change just about every area of law that I can think of.'
So that is the reason why we should not leave the EU? That it would change almost every area of law?!!
And this is the reason why anyone wishing the UK to leave the EU is a 'lunatic'?
What I find depressing is not that someone should write something as stupid as your comment - but rather, that it should be 'recommended' by 6 readers!
God help us: 6 people recommend a comment saying it would be lunacy to leave the EU because it would be so complicated for the lawyers!
Your comment is so ignorant that I am going to deal with it swiftly.
Tell that to the victims of Golden Dawn.
The laws don't seem to be working.
>Has anybody informed Anders Brevik?
Precisely! Norway is NOT an EU member!!
Also, it's Breivik not Brevik.
Dear Michael,
Yes these lunatics must be silenced. We have two choices.
// start a gulag.
// get ready those concentration camps.
What say you?
Funny you suggest that I am in favour of those things, despite that they were connected with the breakdown of an inclusive and diverse society.
Isn't that the very thing you are trying to do?
You forget the purpose of the EU in the first place. How easy some people forget Churchill's words.
Free trade does not need a formal free trade area - at least that is the view of classical free trade economics (which the Economist magazine once supported).
However, a free trade area is NOT a customs union - so the EEC (as it was called) was not what was sold to the British people. The British people were told they were joining a free trade area - in fact they were joining a customs union (a very different thing).
And the E.U. is now a lot more than a Customs Union - it is a government whose detailed regulations (that seem to have been inspired by the ghost of Colbert) seek to control all aspects of human life.
The E.U. is not compatible with freedom. And if Economist magazine people have any self respect left, you will admit this.
Free trade needs rules and regualtions by which both have to set standards and in the rule both will looses and win something.
How much you will loose or win depends on the power you can set into that regulations.
On the case of the UK people were been told this or that when entering the EEC. No possibly you should learn to read. I were only 10 at that time and I were knowing that the EEC was only the first step into a politcial union.
Sorry the only people which can ben balmed hereon are the Britsh themselves.
But as said, ByeBye.
There is nothing "anti European" about being opposed to the European Union - indeed the cultural genius of Europe has been based on political DISunity. Unlike the stagnation of the Roman Empire (with no inventions for centuries and economic and democraphic deline long before polticial collapse), political diversity in Europe has produced astonishing technological and economic advance ove the centuries, as well as many distinct cultures (as opposed to one culture claiming that it alone was of value).
One can trade with people without accepting being ruled by them. And one can experience other forms of food, dress, literature.... (and, yes, marry) without being under one government.
British history has been about PREVENTING a "united Europe" - whether the struggle against Philip II under Elizabeth, or against Louis XIV, or the various French Revolutionary regimes, or against Imperial Germany, or National Socialist Germany, or against the Soviet Union. The basic policy of Britain has been the same - to prevent a united Europe (a reborn Roman Empire or a "country called Europe") as this would be threat to British independence and to freedom generally.
The idea that being in favour of freedom is "xenophobic" is absurd (especially when the charge is made about people who can speak several languages and are married to people from other lands), and the idea that one must accept E.U. regulations on INTERNAL matters in order to trade with people in France or Germany is also absurd.
The Economist magazine is using the arguments of Louis XIV (the Sun King - and his chief minister Colbert) - the argument that to trade with France people in Britain must accept detailed regulations (covering all aspects of life) in BRITAIN.
This "argument" of the Economist magazine makes no sense at all. It is a denial of the basic principle of free trade which is that people can trade with each other WITHOUT being under one government.
It is deeply upsetting that the Economist magazine has rejected the last free market principle (classical free trade) that you still had - and has accepted the fallacy that to have free trade with people one must have the same government.
It appears that all the Economist magazine now stands for is banker bailouts and other corporate welfare.
Well, I understand that any kind of EU would be accepted IF the UK lead it.
You are free to settle in the EU - with some little restrictions - and you are free to do business within the single market. No customs, no tariffs......common rules.....
Regulating the basics is OK. You can go further and question whether the EU is doing that today. Ok. There are many fields that are over-regulated and not just regulated in basic.
Well, as Ms Thatcher has opposed an united Germany and failed the UK can oppose a united Europe - howsoever it will look like - and will fail again. The result will be same as it was after the reunification towards Germany. Maybe the British elites and politicians have learnt from that.
One is certain: there will be a more united Europe in future. With or without the UK and with or against its will. An alliance between France and Germany has been always a thorn in the British side.
"Ms Thatcher has opposed an united Germany."
So did Mitterand.
As for the Franco-German alliance, if only you knew what Hollande is whispering in Washington's ears about "les Boches"?
Apparently Sarkozy complained a lot about the Germans to Washington, most of which cannot be repeated in polite company.
What Franco-German alliance?
It is a forced marriage between two incompatible partners born out of desperation to avoid another war.
Forced marriages always end up making both parties miserable in the end.
As an American who has traveled extensively in most EU countries I would offer the opinion that I do not feel that any British citizen really informed on the economic effects of leaving the EU would vote for that course. It is the emotional masses which are both uninformed and unconnected with the subject that must be feared in a vote on an exit from the EU.
I agree with you. Sometimes seems to me, the last old-style nationalist country in Europe is England. The other European countries have nationalists, especially those with inferiority complex with respect to Germany, which makes them aggressive; but England, not the Scots, etc., is still living as a whole in the national pathos. I think the idiotic press bears part of the guilt.
The Economist explains: How does a denial-of-service attack work?
The Economist explains
The Economist explains: How hedge funds work
The Economist explains
Politics: Nick Clegg on being punished in the polls
Pregnancy and work: Supreme triangulation
Democracy in America
The Cricket World Cup: Bat deep, bowl bravely
Game theory
Amazon's next move: From books to builders
Business and finance
Labour and business: Lions' den
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
In a world of small-blocks where bigger is better, the 327 still gets a lot of respect. Compared to the original 265, the 327 was obviously larger and more powerful, but where the 327 fell short was after the introduction of the larger 350. The 350 had more torque and a production lifespan that endured for decades until the end of the Gen 1 SBC.
Despite being down on inches to the 350, the 327 Chevy still lays claim to the most powerful production conventional small-block ever produced, the L84. Rated at 375 hp, the fuel-injected 327 was a high-winding screamer, as satisfying to drive as any big-block. At the other end of the spectrum, the 327 was also offered at much more pedestrian power levels, as low as 210 hp (gross). Regardless of the original output, the 327 (like any small-block), is a solid foundation for a performance build up. Like many of you, we still love the 327 and wanted to do a quick buildup with one.
Loyal readers will remember that some time back, we included the 327 in our salute to the legendary small-blocks. Taking a look back through the pages of history, we built and tested a number of the most popular and powerful small-blocks from yesteryear, including the DZ302, the LT-1 350 and the L76 327. Those of you who didn't catch the results can look online at superchevy.com—it makes for good reading.
The borrowed fuelie heads and expensive factory dual-plane, high-rise intake were all returned, but the upshot of all that testing was that we were left with a healthy 327 short- block just begging for upgrades. For those just tuning in, the short block used to simulate the 365hp L76, included a four-bolt block, a 3.25-inch (cast) crank and forged domed pistons that produced the requisite 11.0:1 compression ratio with 64cc chamber heads.
The idea behind this story is to provide a route for increased performance for 327 owners. The best way to demonstrate the merits of our modifications was to compare them to a known baseline. Given the vast number of different 327 configurations available over the years, it was difficult to pinpoint the ideal candidate. For this test, we simply relied on the L76 numbers generated previously for our legendary small-block series.
The 365hp 327 configuration served as a high water mark for factory motors, so our baseline motor was best case scenario. With the exception of the injected L84, every other factory 327 would start out producing less power than the L76, making the gains offered by our proposed modifications that much more impressive. Equipped with the legendary fuelie heads, hot Duntov cam and aluminum high-rise intake, you might think this combination would be tough to beat.
Well, time and technology have marched on since the introduction of the L76 and though it was certainly hot for its day, modern cams, intakes and (especially) cylinder heads offer huge power gains over their factory counterparts. Despite the 365hp rating offered by Chevy, run on the dyno, our L76 327 reproduction produced peak numbers of 353 hp and 368 lb-ft of torque.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Search Criteria
Products meeting the search criteria
There is no product that matches the search criteria.
Blog Search Result
Cinnamon Honey Butter Recipe Posted by Kyle Kanno on Dec 22, 2014.
It's holiday time and nothing is quite as comforting as delicious cinnamon honey butter on fresh baked rolls. So here is our super secret family recipe.. more..
Our Self-Serve Honey Stand Posted by Kyle Kanno on Sep 24, 2014.
Most of you probably don't know that we have a self-serve stand at the house. We are all so busy that we found we weren't always home for our customers. So we t.. more..
Why Does Honey Vary in Color Texture and Taste? Posted by Kyle Kanno on Sep 24, 2014.
It may have never crossed your mind but there are as many types as honey as there are types of flowers. And would you believe they can vary drastically in taste.. more..


text:
Rosco1 wrote:Thanks for that report Sean.....The read was going great....till you used that ''Snake'' word...lol
:beer :beer
dicko77 wrote: We are just having a hotwater system and out side shower fitted to my van now so i will be able to camp just about anywhere with no need to worry about anything.
dicko77 wrote:Three water tanks under the floor. 220L of water plus another 180L that goes in the back of the ute. I think this should keep us going for a bit. :?#
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


text:
Welcome to the Disney & Orlando Secrets Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community...
It's easy, fast, totally free (and always will be) and you'll be able to start chatting immediately :)
villa extra insurance?
Discussion in 'Resorts, Hotels, DVC, Villas' started by dvcjane, Aug 3, 2008.


text:
Experience Michiana: August 1st, 2012
Having trouble with this video? Let us know.
About This Episode
Episode #198
Tonight, we talk to Janis Logsdon from Amish Acres about an upcoming festival, Jill Langford about Logan's Run. Plus: First Fridays Dog Days of Summer, Deer Path Gardens and Sarett Nature Center Butterfly House, and much more.
- Original Airdate:
- August 1, 2012
In This Episode
Also In This Episode
- Arts Calendar


text:
The best source for in-depth digital camera reviews is Digital Photography Review. They have a useful buying guide, where you can specify exactly what type features you want in a camera. The reviews are often ten Web pages or more in length, and feature product views, sample images, features discussions and evaluations on everything from […][Read More]
You are here: Home / Archives for Digitial


text:
12 Nov 2012 2:10 AM #1
[126.96.36.199] sencha app build testing does minify?
[220.127.116.11] sencha app build testing does minify?
I'm using Sencha Cmd v220.127.116.11 on OS X.
When I run sencha app build testing the output says:
PHP Code:
Processed local file app.js
Minified app.js
testing - intended for QA prior to production. All JavaScript and CSS source files are bundled, but not minified, which makes it easier to debug.
13 Nov 2012 12:30 PM #2
13 Nov 2012 2:58 PM #3
14 Nov 2012 12:19 PM #4
I'm using CMD with ext4.1.1 and testing doesn't minify app.js
15 Nov 2012 3:57 AM #5
16 Nov 2012 5:54 AM #6
Case closed, it's my fault, I had a false value in build-impl.xml
Looks like we can't reproduce the issue or there's a problem in the test case provided.


text:
Note: This site is best viewed in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or internet device.
MCAT (Medical College Admissions Test)
The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in cooperation with its member United States medical schools developed the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT). The MCAT assesses mastery of problem solving and critical thinking, and writing skills.
The goal of the MCAT is to help admission committees predict which of their applicants will be successful in medical school. Practice test information is available here.
Please go to www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat for scheduling and registration questions for the MCAT Exam.
MCAT registration is available only online. You will be able to access their web registration site approximately 8 to 12 weeks prior to each test date http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/registration.htm. Score reports are mailed from the testing company four to six weeks after the test date. For additional information or inquiries, you may visit the web at www.aamc.org/mcat/students/applying/mcat.
Or write:
MCAT Program Office
P.O. Box 4056
Iowa City, IA 52243-4056
Some phone numbers to help you with information on the MCAT Exam are:
Thomson ProMetric (800)578-6273


text:
I am a board-certified radiation oncologist who specializes in the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a technique that enables me to target and sculpt the radiation dose to maximize its therapeutic benefit while minimizing its effects on nearby normal tissue. I use IMRT to treat lung, breast, and prostate cancers.
My medical oncology colleagues and I work collaboratively to combine chemotherapy and targeted agents with radiation therapy so that we can provide the most-effective treatment for these cancers. Through this multidisciplinary approach, we provide state-of-the-art cancer care equal to that available at Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan to patients who wish to stay near their homes for treatment.
I participate in several clinical trials in Basking Ridge, and I can enroll patients in these trials or facilitate their entry into trials open only at the Center's main campus in Manhattan.
Radiation Oncology; Lung Cancer; Breast Cancer; Prostate Cancer
MD, Jefferson Medical College
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Radiation Oncology


text:
I love that commerical! And IO know you will build it. It's a rare kit for sure. I only made two and you have the second. I still have mine and despite the offers will not sell it.
Thanks BD!
The World's Premiere Resource for Submarines and Submarine Modeling
Users browsing this forum: No registered users


text:
View Cart|Track Order
Colors (remove)
Pink (remove)
"Pretty in Pink" only begins to describe the wide range of pink checks we offer. At Checks SuperStore you can find a huge variety of pink designs, backgrounds, and characters to accentuate your own personal style. We offer everything from bright, hot pink personal checks to more subtle and pale designs. Whether you like hearts to flowers, retro or modern, we make it easy to find the styles that match your personality.
We can help you find something elegant and cultured, like pink monogrammed checks, or something a little more fun, like those featuring the Hello Kitty. We specialize in providing designs that fit most interests. We want to make the process as easy and affordable as possible, so take a look through our huge selection and order yours today.
Black, Silver & Grey - view all 35 products
Blue - view all 157 products
Brown - view all 36 products
Green - view all 115 products
Multiple Colors - view all 35 products
Orange - view all 58 products
Pastels - view all 29 products
Peach - view all 17 products
Purple - view all 70 products
Red - view all 37 products
Tan - view all 40 products
Whites & Naturals - view all 19 products
Yellow & Gold - view all 50 products
My Favorites List
Share This Product With Your Friends
Related Items
Term & Conditions Of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Fees & Credit Policy |
User Agreement |
Affiliates |
Order Form
© 2007 - 2015 Vision Intersoft, Inc.
Congratulations - Promo Code Loaded
Your discounts will automatically be applied when you add products to your shopping cart.


text: Lucky enough for Gnome they didnt buy into the idiotic idea of a clear distiction between touch and workstation. KDE can keep their backward DE on old hardware and keep smelling like the 90s. Im sure even the WM will stay oldfartish and deny the users a good resolution changing mechanism.


text:
Can you afford to go to KCTCS? Can you afford to not? Net Price Calculator will provide you with the ability to estimate federal aid eligibility based on the information you provide.
The estimates provided with this tool should be used as a guide to help you understand likely ranges for student aid you may be eligible to receive. Student aid award estimates are subject to change based on regulations, federal/ state appropriations, any changes in your financial circumstances, and other factors.
The information provided will determine your eligibility for student aid and your award estimates. The accuracy reflected in your results will be based on the data you provide to calculate your Expected Family Contribution (EFC).
Bluegrass Community and Technical College (BCTC) is the premier provider of educational opportunity and a leading force for social and economic vitality in the region. A college education is an excellent investment in your future. A degree or certificate from BCTC will pay off throughout your career in higher salary, better professional opportunities, and personal satisfaction. As you explore your financial options, please feel free to contact us. We would love to tell you more about the value of a BCTC education.
An education here at BCTC is an especially good value. Tuition costs are very affordable, especially for residents of Kentucky. In addition, we offer a wide range of financial aid programs.
Ready to get started? Apply for financial aid now, search and apply for scholarships, get answers to frequently asked questions, or contact our Office of Financial Aid for help or more information.
Financial Aid
Find information on Financial Assistance, Scholarships, and Loans
Student Billing
Find information on tuition and fees, payment plans, and important deadlines