how long will the EU stay in E?
- Thread starter fubbleskag
- Start date
1) My source is the UN; 2) How can the UK "overtake" Germany and France in just two years, when it comes to GDP?
Have you read the numbers I presented?
Have you read the numbers I presented?
The last time I looked, Britain is the EIGHTH richest country in the world, ahead of Germany, France and Italy and is the richest of the large EU countries.
We also have a higher quality of life than France, Germany and Italy -
“Most Livable” Countries, 2004
the following is from "The Human Development Index (HDI) [2004], published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens' quality of life rather than strictly by a nation's traditional economic figures. The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income."
Quote:
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. Iceland
8. United States
9. Japan
10. Ireland
11. Switzerland
12. United Kingdom
13. Finland
14. Austria
15. Luxembourg
16. France
17. Denmark
18. New Zealand
19. Germany
20. Spain
21. Italy
22. Israel
23. Greece
24. Singapore
25. Portugal
26. Slovenia
27. Korea, South
28. Barbados
29. Cyprus
30. Malta
UK is 12th, but France is only 16th, Germany 19th and Italy 21st.
We also have a higher quality of life than France, Germany and Italy -
“Most Livable” Countries, 2004
the following is from "The Human Development Index (HDI) [2004], published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens' quality of life rather than strictly by a nation's traditional economic figures. The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income."
Quote:
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. Iceland
8. United States
9. Japan
10. Ireland
11. Switzerland
12. United Kingdom
13. Finland
14. Austria
15. Luxembourg
16. France
17. Denmark
18. New Zealand
19. Germany
20. Spain
21. Italy
22. Israel
23. Greece
24. Singapore
25. Portugal
26. Slovenia
27. Korea, South
28. Barbados
29. Cyprus
30. Malta
UK is 12th, but France is only 16th, Germany 19th and Italy 21st.
Re: RE: how long will the EU stay in E?
Total GDP or GDP per capita?
Total GDP, we overtook France in the year 200.
GDP per capita we overtook Italy in 1997, but Italy was only BRIEFLY ahead.
To find out when we overtook France and Germany in GDP per capita, look at the graph.
Rick van Opbergen said:
Total GDP or GDP per capita?
Total GDP, we overtook France in the year 200.
GDP per capita we overtook Italy in 1997, but Italy was only BRIEFLY ahead.
To find out when we overtook France and Germany in GDP per capita, look at the graph.
Britain is also richer per capita than Holland. It is now the second-richest country in the EU, behind Luxembourg, according to the EU Commission itself, that says Britain (despite already paying MORE into the EU than it receives) should pay even MORE into the EU because, after Luxembourg, we are the richest country in the EU -
"The Commission believes that the UK’s rebate — secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 — is “indefensible” after ten less wealthy countries joined the EU in May. When the UK was offered the rebate, it was one of the poorer members of the EU, but the Commission says it is now the second richest after Luxembourg."
Britain is now rich enough to pay £3.5bn more, says Brussels
From Anthony Browne and Rory Watson in Brussels
THE European Commission is to make a fresh assault on Britain’s budget rebate that would require British taxpayers to contribute an extra £3.5 billion a year to the European Union.
Under plans to be announced next week, Britain’s rebate would be divided among all rich countries, with the British share slashed by more than two thirds. Britain would become the EU’s biggest net contributor, with taxpayers facing the equivalent of an increase of 2p in the basic rate of income tax.
The Commission believes that the UK’s rebate — secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 — is “indefensible” after ten less wealthy countries joined the EU in May. When the UK was offered the rebate, it was one of the poorer members of the EU, but the Commission says it is now the second richest after Luxembourg.
However, Britain can veto any new budget plans and is likely to block this one. Already Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten, Britain’s commissioners, are understood to be fighting the proposal.
Britain maintains that it is the second biggest contributor to the EU budget, pointing out that between 1995 and 2002 it paid €3.8 billion a year. “That is 2½ times more than France and Italy, and we have similar economies,” a government spokesman said.
It insists that the rebate is necessary because of the major distortions that exist on the expenditure side of the EU budget, since Britain does not benefit hugely from agricultural subsidies. “We have seen no proposal from the Commission for a radical reform of the expenditure side, so there is no justification for removing the rebate,” the spokesman insisted.
The rebate was given to Britain at a summit in Fontainebleau because at the time it was one of the poorer EU countries while making one of the biggest net contributions. Other rich countries, such as France and Italy, get far more back from the EU because of payments from the Common Agricultural Policy, and so their net contribution is less.
But the Commission believes that the current system means the poorest countries of the enlarged EU, such as Estonia, will end up paying money to Britain, now one of the richest. In 1984, Britain’s income was just 91 per cent of the EU average, whereas now it is 111 per cent.
The Commission’s proposals state: “The UK is going to become the smallest net contributer to the European budget, in flagrant contradication of the principles of Fontainebleau. The persistence of such a large anomaly risks undermining the legitimacy of European politics, in particular in the new member states.”
The Commission is proposing a “correction mechanism” to give rebates to all countries that put a lot more into the EU budget than they get back. The mechanism will give a rebate of 56 per cent of all contributions above 0.35 per cent of GDP.
Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget is expected to be 0.62 per cent of GDP during the next budget period. The current rebate reduces that to just 0.25 per cent of GDP, but under the proposals Britain’s net contribution would more than double to 0.51 per cent of GDP.
However, critics sympathetic to Britain insist that the changes being considered fail to take into account the relative prosperity of countries — a fundamental principle when the general budgetary corrective system was mooted in February. They point out that the latest formula would leave the UK paying twice as much per capita to the EU budget as a wealthy Nordic country such as Denmark.
“This would not advance the cause of fairness and is politically naive as such a proposal would not be a helpful opening gambit for the Commission when it tries to convince all 25 EU governments to sign up to it,” one source said.
The two British Commissioners are not alone in arguing for a fairer system. It is understood that several representatives from the new member states, who have recent experience of negotiating their accession terms with EU governments, also believe that the scheme, in its latest guise, is unbalanced.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1171818,00.html
"The Commission believes that the UK’s rebate — secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 — is “indefensible” after ten less wealthy countries joined the EU in May. When the UK was offered the rebate, it was one of the poorer members of the EU, but the Commission says it is now the second richest after Luxembourg."
Britain is now rich enough to pay £3.5bn more, says Brussels
From Anthony Browne and Rory Watson in Brussels
THE European Commission is to make a fresh assault on Britain’s budget rebate that would require British taxpayers to contribute an extra £3.5 billion a year to the European Union.
Under plans to be announced next week, Britain’s rebate would be divided among all rich countries, with the British share slashed by more than two thirds. Britain would become the EU’s biggest net contributor, with taxpayers facing the equivalent of an increase of 2p in the basic rate of income tax.
The Commission believes that the UK’s rebate — secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 — is “indefensible” after ten less wealthy countries joined the EU in May. When the UK was offered the rebate, it was one of the poorer members of the EU, but the Commission says it is now the second richest after Luxembourg.
However, Britain can veto any new budget plans and is likely to block this one. Already Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten, Britain’s commissioners, are understood to be fighting the proposal.
Britain maintains that it is the second biggest contributor to the EU budget, pointing out that between 1995 and 2002 it paid €3.8 billion a year. “That is 2½ times more than France and Italy, and we have similar economies,” a government spokesman said.
It insists that the rebate is necessary because of the major distortions that exist on the expenditure side of the EU budget, since Britain does not benefit hugely from agricultural subsidies. “We have seen no proposal from the Commission for a radical reform of the expenditure side, so there is no justification for removing the rebate,” the spokesman insisted.
The rebate was given to Britain at a summit in Fontainebleau because at the time it was one of the poorer EU countries while making one of the biggest net contributions. Other rich countries, such as France and Italy, get far more back from the EU because of payments from the Common Agricultural Policy, and so their net contribution is less.
But the Commission believes that the current system means the poorest countries of the enlarged EU, such as Estonia, will end up paying money to Britain, now one of the richest. In 1984, Britain’s income was just 91 per cent of the EU average, whereas now it is 111 per cent.
The Commission’s proposals state: “The UK is going to become the smallest net contributer to the European budget, in flagrant contradication of the principles of Fontainebleau. The persistence of such a large anomaly risks undermining the legitimacy of European politics, in particular in the new member states.”
The Commission is proposing a “correction mechanism” to give rebates to all countries that put a lot more into the EU budget than they get back. The mechanism will give a rebate of 56 per cent of all contributions above 0.35 per cent of GDP.
Britain’s net contribution to the EU budget is expected to be 0.62 per cent of GDP during the next budget period. The current rebate reduces that to just 0.25 per cent of GDP, but under the proposals Britain’s net contribution would more than double to 0.51 per cent of GDP.
However, critics sympathetic to Britain insist that the changes being considered fail to take into account the relative prosperity of countries — a fundamental principle when the general budgetary corrective system was mooted in February. They point out that the latest formula would leave the UK paying twice as much per capita to the EU budget as a wealthy Nordic country such as Denmark.
“This would not advance the cause of fairness and is politically naive as such a proposal would not be a helpful opening gambit for the Commission when it tries to convince all 25 EU governments to sign up to it,” one source said.
The two British Commissioners are not alone in arguing for a fairer system. It is understood that several representatives from the new member states, who have recent experience of negotiating their accession terms with EU governments, also believe that the scheme, in its latest guise, is unbalanced.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1171818,00.html
You might also want to be reminded the reason why Germany's economic numbers don't look as good these days: The former DDR. The troubles brought in by the Eastern 1/3 of the country have pushed Germany's GDP per capita down as a result.
They are still the biggest and most powerful economy in the European Union. They are also the most populated country in the EuroZone.
The short-term does not look good for Germany, but the capital investments in the Eastern part of the country will allow for further economic growth throughout the whole country.
You're just taken advantage of poor economic conditions throughout the world in order to try and convince people that the UK will be the next world superpower... which will never happen. :roll:
If the world works the way you suggest, I could do the exact same with the Canadian vs. US dollar and make the claim that the Canadian economy will take over the US economy just because we have a few years of fast-tracked economic growth. :roll:
I guess your idea is that the UK leave the EU and get even closer with the United States? Sounds like a plan. I'd probably renounce my British citizenship if the UK got any closer to George Bush.
The UK has been exploiting foreign lands for centuries, that's all over. There's no more gain from going out on your own and conquering the world. It's best bet is to join the community, now known as the EU.
They are still the biggest and most powerful economy in the European Union. They are also the most populated country in the EuroZone.
The short-term does not look good for Germany, but the capital investments in the Eastern part of the country will allow for further economic growth throughout the whole country.
You're just taken advantage of poor economic conditions throughout the world in order to try and convince people that the UK will be the next world superpower... which will never happen. :roll:
If the world works the way you suggest, I could do the exact same with the Canadian vs. US dollar and make the claim that the Canadian economy will take over the US economy just because we have a few years of fast-tracked economic growth. :roll:
I guess your idea is that the UK leave the EU and get even closer with the United States? Sounds like a plan. I'd probably renounce my British citizenship if the UK got any closer to George Bush.
The UK has been exploiting foreign lands for centuries, that's all over. There's no more gain from going out on your own and conquering the world. It's best bet is to join the community, now known as the EU.
Blackleaf, of all EU countries the Netherlands has been one of the highest payers compared to what they recieved (in terms of percentage). But aren't you comparing a bit apples to oranges when it comes to the GDP of these countries? As you said, Luxembourg has the highest GDP of the EU - but it is on the 15th place in the HDI, while Britain is on the 12th place, and the Netherlands - with its lower GDP according to you compared to Britain - on the 5th place. If the EU is that bad at the moment, how come of the 20th countries described as the best countries to live in according to the UN, 12 are situated in the EU? (Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, United Kingdom, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Germany and Spain)
Rick. You have made excellent points.
Don't foget to look at the SIZE of some countries compared to others. For one, Luxembourg has a high GDP but it's the size of the city of Montréal :roll:
There are also countries that have a higher percentage of people who live in cities, which probably account for a higher GDP (being, cityfolk usually make more).
Don't foget to look at the SIZE of some countries compared to others. For one, Luxembourg has a high GDP but it's the size of the city of Montréal :roll:
There are also countries that have a higher percentage of people who live in cities, which probably account for a higher GDP (being, cityfolk usually make more).