Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: spoilered for Helgo's benefit (click to show/hide)

The Norway payment argument
The argument that Norway pays more to the EU than if they joined as far as I can tell seems to have popped up from Guardian memes that ignore Norway's contributions are humanitarian and are a result of leftist MPs in Norway who want to help Southern European countries recover from German administration.
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.VsNWpeYaqrJ
Easiest number to explain. The argument as well that Norway must comply with EU regulations when exporting and having no say also makes little sense, it's very sneaky too. If in Britain we make a Jaguar car that we intend to export to the USA we must comply with their regulations so their car isn't built to be driven on the wrong side of the road, yet no one would argue that we must join Washington in order to have Washington regulate our own cars (???), and that's even assuming we get any say when we don't, having no legislative power, veto or regulatory power from elected or unelected national bodies (well, we do, but that's because we regularly tell EU regulators to fuck off), why on Earth is this an argument for giving a foreign body regulatory authority on domestic affairs, and more than that - supremacy over national law? "Oh yeah, we'll decide you can't put UK flags on your beef in Britain so your high regulation standards cannot create any untolerant competition with Polish horsebeef, in exchange we'll try take over your country, remove your borders, remove your national bank, take control of your currency, your military and you get an icecream at the end."
That's why the general response is simple: Fuck off, you don't get a say in regulating us because you just don't represent us, and even if the EU actually gave me the authority to decide if French winemakers weren't allowed to put French flags on their wine to avoid "unfair" competition against British winemakers that's not how the bloody free market works and I don't want domination of France. On the moral argument, if we can have free trade with China without China controlling our government, what is the EU for? The fact that you have to pretend this is not a political project and speak of it in terms of a free market speaks volumes. The UK joined a common market, it did not join a political union - for that matter, no one joined a political union. Yet here we are today, in a political union.

Drop the shekels, trade war now
I'm requoting this: 'It is impossible for the EU to launch a trade war against a departing member under World Trade Organization rules, (...) not that French wine producers or German car manufacturers would allow their governments to threaten access to a market as important as the UK anyway.'
Now I hinge nothing on international law, as it has always been mocked and flaunted whenever convenient and I don't doubt this would be any different. Now here is where the numbers come in:
Germany exported to the UK $105,122,552,228, the UK exported to Germany $51,158,697,462. That means Germany is profiting $54,000,000,000 off of Anglo-German trade. If they try to impose trade barriers, they are kicking the cactus field - and its their own cacti, because that $54,000,000,000 stops going to Germany, and starts going to the USA, to BRIC, to MINT, to the Commonwealth (it is honestly much easier to list the countries we're not trading with than to list the ones we are). The UK will still get her imports but Germany will not be getting sterling, and will have to look attract buyers from elsewhere. I do not think they will bother with the effort unless they believe depriving themselves of $50B a year hurts the UK :P
Just look at the statistics, less and less British goods (British exports to the EU between May and June even fell $300,000,000 in just one month) because Europe just does not offer us nearly as many opportunities to grow as actually growing economies across the sea. Meanwhile imports rose as European manufacturers have had trouble finding customers like the UK who are nearby, wealthy and buying! If you do not understand how this works, it is the person with the money who has the leverage here, not the person producing the products. Germany dominates the EU and makes the EU fit their agenda, and Germany is much more dependent upon British customers than the other way around. It's very simple - British customers can go abroad to every continent in the world, German products cannot.

The UK cannot survive without EU imports.
This is a sneaky one. This argument hinges on the notion that the UK will somehow be isolated from all EU imports and the EU will be able to stop French wine makers from selling wine to the UK and German car manufacturers from selling German cars to the UK e.t.c.
An independent UK would set its own tariffs and would decide on its own whether it wants to charge French wine makers to export to the UK (which it wouldn't, seeing as the UK is the sixth biggest consumer of wine in the world). French wine is perhaps the most significant leverage Germany could ever hope to hold, because the UK can survive entirely independent of EU imports in all things except French wine. In all other cases the UK can just import from another country or just use their domestic industry, but even with recent climate change allowing for excellent domestic UK champagne on a par with champagne from champagne, the brand image, the tradition and the scale of French winemaking is without parallel. Simply put, France holds a monopoly on French Wine. The most damage that a post-UK EU could possibly inflict on the UK is doing something like imposing a Britwine duty tax on any wine leaving France for Britain to try and raise the price of exporting wine to the UK and force French winemakers to sell more to Germany, the Netherlands, the USA and China. Assuming they also closed any Serbia-esque loopholes where the UK didn't just import French wine through Belgium or Ireland, this would quickly become a wine war between British drinkers and French producers. When it comes to chemical stimulants the rules of free trade do not apply the same way :D
It is notable I think, that the UK's eurosceptics drink beer and ale, whilst our europhiles drink wine and champagne.
So to summarize, the EU would not be able to stop European countries from exporting to the UK without damaging those countries whilst leaving the UK unscathed. With one exception - stopping French wine. Currently this is no issue for the UK as global wine sales have fallen leaving France even more dependent upon UK consumption, but if France managed to reduce her wine dependency on the UK (maybe just double up domestic drinking?) this one is achievable, and would raise prices on UK wine and result in thousands of cases of horrible sobriety.

The EU could make life difficult for British exporters.
This one is much easier for the EU to do, they may not be able to stop Europeans from exporting to the UK but they can at the very least try and discourage British manufacturers from exporting to the EU with extra regulations, tariffs and paper just for the lols. It would help employ more EU bureaucrats too, cos Arkad knows the EU doesn't have enough bureaucrats :D
Just looking at the import/export statistics of the UK's top trading partners is gleeful:
http://i.imgur.com/2LiI0ro.png
Non-German countries offer us more already without any of the hassle, and any nation that sides with Germany's politicians on this can be cut out of the equation quite easily, exception being Ireland where we already have preexisting free trade deals and citizen benefits which predate the European Union's existence. Well, we already have a lot of free trade deals with Europe, given history and all, but again let's not take anything for granted and assume only by the numbers, as as we've accepted international law is sadly flaunted at will by design or accident.
Let us look at the numbers:

In the last few years we have made a huge difference and built a much stronger bilateral trading relationship between our countries. The figures tell the story - bilateral trade at record levels, our exports to China up 15% in 2013, they have more than doubled in the last 5 years and at £1 billion a month, they are growing faster than France or Germany.
These figures prove once again that Britain is the most open economy in the EU, the most welcoming to Chinese investment including in our nuclear industry and our infrastructure and I’m determined to keep it that way.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-china-agree-14-billion-of-trade-and-investment-deals

The top exports of the United Kingdom are: Cars ($40.7B), Refined Petroleum ($29.8B), Crude Petroleum ($22.7B), Packaged Medicaments ($20.3B), Gas Turbines ($17.2B)
Its top imports are: Cars ($40.3B), Crude Petroleum ($39.6B), Refined Petroleum ($28.8B), Packaged Medicaments ($18B), Computers ($16.2B)
The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are: United States ($50.2B), Germany ($46.6B), the Netherlands ($36B), France ($28.8B), Belgium-Luxembourg ($25.1B)
The top import origins are: Germany ($88.8B), China ($55.2B), the Netherlands ($52.1B), France ($39B), United States ($37.8B)
Most of our cars and engines go to three countries in particular, the USA, Germany and China. Germany may actually be able to profit here by trying to impose restrictions on British engines entering Europe in favour of German car engines, just as long as Germany manages their carbon emissions scandal. Yet the EU cannot stop us from exporting to the rest of the world which offers more profit anyways, resulting in the situation where export to China increased to $18,070,724,927, to India increased to $3,911,180,179, and trade with the rest of
BRIC and
MINT is healthy. Except with Russia, where trade pretty much halved, but sanctions and all you know. Then there is the issue of crude and refined forms of oil, where Germany can try their best to stop oil flowing (hahaha) but their energy needs will then have to come from somewhere else. And there is only one who can replace the UK for Germany: RUSSYA
http://i.imgur.com/SbNT3H6.jpg
This was the chart I used earlier for 2005, eurostat gave me this:
http://i.imgur.com/UrHLlNj.jpg
And of Norwegian gas, most of it goes to the UK anyways:
http://i.imgur.com/Pj4KQfl.png
Germany can try to cut off UK gas exports, but without any realistic alternative suppliers they would either have to have their entire country's industry incapable of manufacturing anything from petrochemicals, capable of powering themselves, powering their homes or heating them or cooking their food - or they could place their fate in the hands of Vladimir Putin.

GLORY GLORY RUSSYA

Also our gas turbines are global, as are our pharmaceuticals. Though I would be amused to see Germany driving up the price of their own medicine and energy kek

But they could right?
The EU could make life hard for UK exporters within Europe to try and discourage them and encourage local competition, this has good chances of helping European industries avoid British competition (French nuclear vs British nuclear, German cars vs British cars comes to mind), but UK exporters are increasingly exporting outside of the EU, the countries we export to within the EU we already have free trade deals with. That is also assuming the European Union possesses the mechanisms to actually restrict British exports, given just how much Chinese steel has made a mockery of Europe's struggling steel industries (I told you Covenant, I warned you bro, if the UK had not moved on from steel a long time ago we'd be in the same boat as Germany today). Nothing is impossible though, so on the offchance Germany tries to restrict British exports to Europe she will have to give the British market share in German energy to Russia, and she possesses no naval force capable of stopping British exports from going across the world, so there is nothing stopping Britain from using Turkey/Ireland/Switzerland/Norway, hell even Russia, Israel or Ukraine to export British goods to Europe, and there is nothing stopping Britain from merely exporting more to the Americas, to Africa, or any of the burgeoning economies all across Asia. Exports from the UK to EU and non-EU countries have grown on average by 3.6% and 6.5% respectively in each year between 1999 and 2014. However, the stronger export growth to non-EU countries has resulted in the proportion of UK exports destined for the EU falling from 54.8% in 1999 to 44.6% in 2014. Simply put the much faster growth found elsewhere than within the EU has meant already the economies of the globe are more important to the United Kingdoms. I don't believe the EU under a fully centralized nation state that has abolished all national democracy completely would even be able to stop British exports to Europe just as Napoleon failed to despite having his Berlin decree backed by more than words - he had the greatest military force of his time at his disposal. And from the EU falling from 54.8% in 1999 to 44.6% in 2014? We're better off in the sun and the tropics where the real shekels are at.

But what of ISIS, Russia, Ukrainians, Syrians, refugees, immigrants, autocrats and the cheeky banter?
Yeah that is an interesting point I just made up.
Mainly in response to this:

Also, I don't see why you make such a big deal of Germany fiscal situation. Germany is running a 0.7% budget surplus (Compared to a 4.4% budget deficit for the UK), is paying 0.25% interst rate on its bonds (1.47% for the UK) and has debt of 71% of GDP and falling (compared to 88% and climbing for the UK.)

NO CITATIONS SHEB MAKES LW A DULL PLEB
An internal government report seen by Die Welt am Sonntag predicts that Germany will have to take on uncontrollable debt if it doesn’t start making huge budget cuts now. It’s the same old problem: not only Germans are living longer than ever before, they’re not producing enough offspring to replace them in the workforce. The result will be levels of debt reaching 220 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2060 - well above the 60 percent limit for EU member states set out by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 - experts from inside Wolfgang Schäuble's finance ministry have calculated. But to do this would require budget cuts in the region of €7 billion a year, starting immediately - and that’s according to the finance report's more optimistic scenario for the future.
Which would be easier had Germany not done this to themselves:

Apparently the refugee situation will cost Germany around 50 billion euros in 2016-2017
Now I still hold that for 50 billion we could have easily supported Jordania Lebanon and Turkey into improving the refugee situation there (and the majority IS STILL THERE in abysmal conditions now)  and solved the issue locally.
http://www.rp-online.de/politik/deutschland/fluechtlinge-kosten-deutschland-50-milliarden-euro-aid-1.5732479

For the UK however our deficit is forecast to fall. Not that there's anything wrong with borrowing money if it's invested well, we're not exactly splashing out as Greece did we're running the financial capital of the world here, it's why we're one of the most popular business startup centres in the world and why when it comes to finding specialists, technicians and consultants for corporations then it is THE most popular centre in the world for it. Whether your business be economic, financial, media, industrial, agricultural, energy, aerospace - doesn't matter what it is, Britain has it. And whilst Britain has invested her debts wisely, Germany has spent hers making jihad instructional videos :P
I joke, but what I'm saying is Germany has wasted her money on millions of people who won't work to somehow pay for how many tens of millions of old people who cannot work? Whilst the Eurozone has been stagnating UK growth forecasts have been boosted due to our businesses having done better than expected, and we already have all the money from our finance we need to (re)startup some sexy industry in preparation of any future economic collapses. Billions of dollars of debt is small fry for the UK when we have a trillion dollars in foreign investment. When people buy stocks, they go to New York, they go to Tokyo - they go to London.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: spoilerd because semi-skimmed milk is for ninnies (click to show/hide)

But again, I'm assuming that the global economy doesn't collapse, which is quite a foolish assumption as it tends to do it every now and then. Finance is only as strong as peoples' confidence in it, which saps quite quickly during said collapse. What then? What possible leverage does the UK still have?
I don't see where you got the notion that the UK has no leverage, as you do not post sources. Germany's dug herself a hole deep enough to swallow up the English Channel's precious liquids. Our absence would be felt by Germany to be sure.
http://i.imgur.com/zmHvgLB.png
That's from this. It is also from 2013, ignoring that the UK aid budget has actually increased by a billion and a few hundred million. We are punching so far above our weight on the humanitarian scale you wouldn't even believe, it honestly puts the wealthier Germany to shame - and as Antioch points out, with tens of millions of Sterling the British government has been able to provide for millions of war victims (can't even call them refugees because they are so under threat they cannot even flee), even managing to deliver aid through areas of Syria without permission from Assad to areas otherwise ruled by ISIS. And again, that's helping millions with just tens of millions of our multi-billion pound sterling aid budget, with so much of our foreign aid going towards helping billions of people from BRIC to Africa get education, get water, get food - acquire the tools needed to build their own families up and to build their own country up so they don't have to rely on foreign aid anymore. We also possess one of the only two blue water navies and the military needed to ensure this aid can get past insurgents, our military advisers have trained 350,000 local police in Afghanistan alone, our military intelligence is only rivaled by the likes of USA, France, Russia and China, our air force has currently already forced ISIS to halve their pay after their banks and oil fields were blown up by our planes, our instructors have alongside the French also been training government forces in building their own strong militaries to take on their own insurgents like Boko Haram - so what if Germany succeeds in economically destroying its apparent friend and ally the UK?

All Royal Navy patrols in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean cease, to focus on the Atlantic. That means losing out on the world's foremost mine clearing fleet and losing out on all of our humanitarian patrols. Our troops have to be withdrawn from abroad so you lose access to our military trainers as they just can't be paid or kept safe and whatever regional instability occurs is out of our hands. Our foreign aid budget would have to be drastically cut as a multi-billion pound sterling foreign aid budget cannot be maintained on a collapsed economy. What you end up with is hundreds of millions of people suddenly losing out on the basic necessities of life with pirates and insurgents roaming about freely and no barriers to making the journey northwards to Germany, with only death waiting at home.

If we don't pay for India's poor, their government likely won't. For starters there's fucking loads of them, whilst India's tax base is quite small and they do not want to harm their ludicrously expanding economy by scaring away their moguls with wealth distribution (which they can't effectively enforce, lacking a powerful justice system relatively free from corruption as the UK). There are also shadows of the caste system looming overhead, so their elite will not help their undercastes whilst foreigners have no issue. India is of the Commonwealth, its citizens are in need whilst its government is still developing and centralizing the country - this is the UK-USA path I was talking about earlier. India is rapidly growing, but it has not yet reached its full potential, it cannot yet fully support its own citizens. If we drop that aid, the risk of instability from central and western asia or southeast asia spreading into India would be the greatest horror in humanitarian catastrophe since the last Chinese civil war or WWII.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I'd like to support the Commonwealth - we have ties that are worth preserving if we can. They've helped us in the past, and perhaps they'll help us in the future. But being allies in a world war is different than us handing out pocket money. And it's hard to shake the feeling that in the modern age, we, as a country, are laughed at for being a soft touch. We're giving money to China and India, both countries with huge economies. And we're giving money to a myriad of smaller countries who are more a nuisance to us than anything resembling a help.

"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of a sheep." - Trywin Lannister
The Germans in WWI laughed at the British until their rifles opened fire. Not all problems can be solved by sending in the lads though, you can't grasp a butterfly in the grip of an iron fist, and Billy no mates die fast whilst the British still remain. Currently there are tens of millions of children already who have benefited off of British aid, the knock on effects of these kids growing up well and working for their nations will give them more wealth and allow them to provide for their own families and by extension, reach a point where their governments can provide for them. When you see they can't afford water, pencils, paper, soap - having to borrow a little more money to provide it for them keeps our civil servants busy and our humanitarian mission alive. Let the Germans call us racist, let the Russians call us cheeki monkeys, let the Chinese call us the setting sun, let the Americans forget we even exist. When millions of children every year can pick up a book they actually have the literacy to read, when they aren't dying from voiding their bowels or coughing up their lungs - who gives a fuck if we aren't thanked for it, we've undisputedly done the right thing. Plus some of our aid goes not towards making people dependent on us or their governments, but towards giving them the basic tools they need to stand on their feet and hold their government accountable for their actions. No poor nation can get foreign investment coming in in meaningful amounts with a corrupt government, and a corrupt government cannot be purged without either an authoritarian leader like Ataturk or Lee Kuan Yew or a grassroots movement by the people, who with access to the global economy can project their own power and link up with other like minded people.

*Unspoilered, this is the ultimate takehome. Where all other arguments have been that the UK cannot be harmed - this is what happens if it is.*

This is what I wrote before in defence of the UK's large foreign aid budget. I am actually not spouting a popular belief in the UK, as most in the UK think we have spent too much, and not many agree with me on this at all, left-wing or right-wing, progressive or conservative. It is getting increasingly harder to justify increasing our foreign aid budget whilst we cut our own healthcare spending or defence spending for example.
In the event of Germany trying to damage the British economy the first thing that goes is the foreign aid budget as it is the only multibillion pound area of state spending that can be cut without affecting any Brits at all.
Migrants from Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, China, Syria, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have all been coming to Europe. Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, India and Bangladesh have been the top five beneficiaries of bilateral British aid. China (£27M), Syria (£1.1B) and Afghanistan (£182M) have all been massive recipients of British aid, with the addition that the UK has trained 350,000 soldiers and police in Afghanistan to help the country stop getting taliban'd.
And that's not even taking into account that whilst we gave aid for the Syrians being kept alive in Jordan and Turkey, the EU failed to deliver the billions of Euros it promised Erdogan.
All the people Britain helps, all the refugees and countries Britain is developing - they would get left on their own. Their people would have only one place to go: Europe. Britain would still control the channel, whereas Germany has already destroyed all of Europe's barriers and are already lost under the millions of annual migrants. To paraphrase Erdogan:
“We do not have the word ‘idiot’ written on our foreheads." Neither do the German people. The likes of Gunther? Unsurprisingly, it is the mind of the short sighted that brought us into one mess, it will be the minds of the short sighted bringing us potentially to another.

Just by British inaction would the EU be destroyed. We as Europol forumites have been surprised as the humanitarian crisis for Germany scaled from tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands to millions by the year, currently the UK are all that's keeping millions on Europe's doorstep from either dying or desperately trying to make it to Germany, and hundreds of millions all across the world including in some of the most popular origins for European illegal migrants, Pakistan just being one example. No British aid = no home future = off to Germany in numbers that would be culturally enriching on a scale never before seen.
This is not even taking into consideration a British withdrawal from Eastern Europe and Germany, letting Russia do as they wish in the East. This is not even taking into consideration what would happen if the UK were to treat Germany the same way her ministers treat us (seriously why haven't you replaced them yet). Britain does not threaten Germany with existential destruction because Britain considers Germany as friends, and through a foreign policy which costs the UK a lot of money Germany is not broken by biblical migration and powerful neighbours. Hostility goes on a two way street, now you can safely bankrupt Greece and repossess her assets but you don't try to take on the UK like that. I don't even need to go into the past in how every time Germany went up in hostility to the UK the UK won, I'm talking today. Some people seem to be mistaken ITT when I argue for a path of Anglo-German cooperation, friendship and business, thinking that means the UK is in a position of weakness or supplication and that Germany has already won Britain. That is why I posted the earlier article about the difference between German Realpolitik and British politik, showing the difference between how Germany acted without caring for public or international opinion whilst Britain did for example. And today we see things like Germany forcing lesser nations to act in line via economic domination and regulation whilst the UK pursues a path of economic cooperation with as many nations as it possibly can, or in how Germany tried to solve its demographic problem with a humanitarian problem and just created two demographic and humanitarian problems whilst the UK took on more successfully by simply being honest and keeping its mission objectives well-defined and achievable.

In short Sheb, it is not a question of who will let us rule ourselves, it is a question of who will stop us. If Germany makes a move to crush the UK's economy and succeeds she will guarantee her own destruction, independent of whether the UK even makes any move to strike Germany financially or otherwise. And when it comes to power, there is no mistaking that Germany traded her power for wealth. The UK did no such thing, and still has her wealth. That is perhaps why I share my country's MP in his confusion as to why Gunther would actually dare to threaten the UK with crippling tariffs. It's like he's trying to make a powerful enemy out of a powerful friend, and this saddens me because I hate to see what German leadership is doing to Germany.

Speaking of, I am worried there is a real possibility that German statesmen and women either do not know or do not care about their economic relationship with the UK and the UK's relationship with refugees, or indeed Germany's ability to cope. Consider that I had to search many government statistics and such to get good numbers, there was not a single news source that posted everything in plain sight. Ha! Germany could actually commit to a trade war. Let's hope ignorance does not prevail, and let's hope my government does not stop their humanitarian aid.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh, and because I stumbled upon this whilst recollating my stats, this one's for you Vilanat:
Is the break-up of the EU good for Israel?

A more integrated EU would not bode well for Israel. There is by now ample evidence to support the prediction that the more power Brussels has, the more it will abuse it against Israel. This may be seen, for example, from the discriminatory labeling of settlement products and the financial support for extremist so-called humanitarian Israeli NGOs – in reality humanitarian racist bodies – which remain silent about the genocidal intentions of Hamas, the largest Palestinian party. The EU also interferes in the in the Israel-controlled Area C in opposition to Israel’s declared wishes, including financing housing for Palestinians there.

Double standards are at the core of anti-Semitism through the centuries. The EU has frequently applied these against Israel. The requirement to label goods from Israeli settlements – something not demanded for areas elsewhere which are similarly in dispute – made the EU bias against Israel so explicit that the Simon Wiesenthal Center gave the EU pride of place in its annual 2015 list of major anti-Semitic slurs.

I've made my opinion clear enough on crazy lefties who sort of surprised everyone by being the first to attack Jews alongside domestic Jihadists, I am trying for peace in my time but I walk the tightrope of multikultur where everyone wants to kill everyone

Also our government banned boycotting Israeli goods. Coincidence? I think not!
"Labour has criticised the new anti-boycotts policy as an “attack on democracy"
Well that's why our Jews went Tory lol
Also context on the boycott, the British government is not going to hunt you down and force you to buy Israeli goods, its forcing its own departments into not using state money to enforce their own political agendas. It's a very reasonable request, it's not the job of the NHS or transport or council to have a foreign policy, that's why we have the Foreign Office and Diplomats. God, it's days like these that supporting Israel becomes easy again. And fucks sakes, why do they want to boycott Israel in particular? Saudis are rolling all over from Yemen to Syria, beheading people on their streets and all, but they're cool? Cooouuuh, sure pays to have oil lel

[Loud Whispers]

And for the love of all that is good and just, I forgot to add a single cheeki breeki to any of my posts!

[martinuzz]

A quintuple post has entered your dungeon

[Baffler]

-holyfucksnip-

А ну, чики-брики и в дамки.

Seriously though;

Spoiler: Gas (click to show/hide)

The EU could make life difficult for British exporters.
This one is much easier for the EU to do, they may not be able to stop Europeans from exporting to the UK but they can at the very least try and discourage British manufacturers from exporting to the EU with extra regulations, tariffs and paper just for the lols. It would help employ more EU bureaucrats too, cos Arkad knows the EU doesn't have enough bureaucrats :D
Just looking at the import/export statistics of the UK's top trading partners is gleeful:
http://i.imgur.com/2LiI0ro.png
Non-German countries offer us more already without any of the hassle, and any nation that sides with Germany's politicians on this can be cut out of the equation quite easily, exception being Ireland where we already have preexisting free trade deals and citizen benefits which predate the European Union's existence. Well, we already have a lot of free trade deals with Europe, given history and all, but again let's not take anything for granted and assume only by the numbers, as as we've accepted international law is sadly flaunted at will by design or accident.
Let us look at the numbers:

In the last few years we have made a huge difference and built a much stronger bilateral trading relationship between our countries. The figures tell the story - bilateral trade at record levels, our exports to China up 15% in 2013, they have more than doubled in the last 5 years and at £1 billion a month, they are growing faster than France or Germany.
These figures prove once again that Britain is the most open economy in the EU, the most welcoming to Chinese investment including in our nuclear industry and our infrastructure and I’m determined to keep it that way.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-china-agree-14-billion-of-trade-and-investment-deals

The top exports of the United Kingdom are: Cars ($40.7B), Refined Petroleum ($29.8B), Crude Petroleum ($22.7B), Packaged Medicaments ($20.3B), Gas Turbines ($17.2B)
Its top imports are: Cars ($40.3B), Crude Petroleum ($39.6B), Refined Petroleum ($28.8B), Packaged Medicaments ($18B), Computers ($16.2B)
The top export destinations of the United Kingdom are: United States ($50.2B), Germany ($46.6B), the Netherlands ($36B), France ($28.8B), Belgium-Luxembourg ($25.1B)
The top import origins are: Germany ($88.8B), China ($55.2B), the Netherlands ($52.1B), France ($39B), United States ($37.8B)
Most of our cars and engines go to three countries in particular, the USA, Germany and China. Germany may actually be able to profit here by trying to impose restrictions on British engines entering Europe in favour of German car engines, just as long as Germany manages their carbon emissions scandal. Yet the EU cannot stop us from exporting to the rest of the world which offers more profit anyways, resulting in the situation where export to China increased to $18,070,724,927, to India increased to $3,911,180,179, and trade with the rest of
BRIC and
MINT is healthy. Except with Russia, where trade pretty much halved, but sanctions and all you know. Then there is the issue of crude and refined forms of oil, where Germany can try their best to stop oil flowing (hahaha) but their energy needs will then have to come from somewhere else. And there is only one who can replace the UK for Germany: RUSSYA
http://i.imgur.com/SbNT3H6.jpg
This was the chart I used earlier for 2005, eurostat gave me this:
http://i.imgur.com/UrHLlNj.jpg
And of Norwegian gas, most of it goes to the UK anyways:
http://i.imgur.com/Pj4KQfl.png
Germany can try to cut off UK gas exports, but without any realistic alternative suppliers they would either have to have their entire country's industry incapable of manufacturing anything from petrochemicals, capable of powering themselves, powering their homes or heating them or cooking their food - or they could place their fate in the hands of Vladimir Putin.

GLORY GLORY RUSSYA

Also our gas turbines are global, as are our pharmaceuticals. Though I would be amused to see Germany driving up the price of their own medicine and energy kek

I don't have the cojones to write a gigantic reply to this, but alternatives exist to Russian gas. This isn't completed yet, to my knowledge, but the European Union isn't stupid. They've mostly been content to let the Nigerian government work at it until now, but if it becomes a strategic interest I can definitely see this moving forward at a slightly less anemic pace. Recent drops in petrol prices have greatly damaged the ecomonies of the nations this pipeline would connect to Europe as well, and the much improved access to the European market this project would provide is a very attractive prospect to them.

[Loud Whispers]

А ну, чики-брики и в дамки.

CHEKI BREKI :D

In case you're wondering where LW got his numbers.

Only some of them sadly, a lot of them are all over the fucking place, takes more time to find them. But the sources for my numbers are all in the same sentence or just at the end so no worries

Seriously though;

-snop-
-stuff about gas-

I don't have the cojones to write a gigantic reply to this, but alternatives exist to Russian gas. This isn't completed yet, to my knowledge, but the European Union isn't stupid. They've mostly been content to let the Nigerian government work at it until now, but if it becomes a strategic interest I can definitely see this moving forward at a slightly less anemic pace. Recent drops in petrol prices have greatly damaged the ecomonies of the nations this pipeline would connect to Europe as well, and the much improved access to the European market this project would provide is a very attractive prospect to them.

Spoiler: spolla spolla get dolla (click to show/hide)

Honestly I'd be surprised if the European Union hasn't jumped on this already, and if they're holding back on the funding it's probably just because they're worried about Nigeria spontaneously imploding, their money getting siphoned off into some Swiss bank account for safe keeping, or these guys:
http://i.imgur.com/r4K2QjL.png
From their wikipedia page

The troops raided the Kula Community in the Rivers State over allegations of widespread militant activities including kidnappings and killings. Niger Delta is an oil-rich region in southern Nigeria inhabited by more than 31 million people. It is composed of nine modern-day Nigerian states and has been marred by widespread violence, kidnappings for ransom and clashes between militant groups and the army since the early 2000s. In 2008, a Joint Task Force (JTF) was deployed to curb militant activity in the area.

Militant groups originated in the early 2000s following the deterioration of the living conditions of people living in oil-rich areas due to the increase of oil-related activities by foreign oil corporations. Tensions between foreign oil corporations in the region and local communities arose as some ethnic groups felt they were being exploited and could not benefit by the presence of oil in the area.

The repeated oil spills that considerably damaged the environment and affected people's health contributed to further deepen the communities' frustration. In 2015, Amnesty International said that Royal Dutch Shell and the Italian multinational oil giant ENI admitted to more than 550 oil spills in the Niger Delta in 2014 alone. In January, Shell agreed to pay $84m (£55m) in compensation to the Bodo community over two oil spills which affected more than 15,000 fishermen in the area. Damages caused by oil spills also forced people to abandon agricultural practices and, as a result, they became poorer.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nigerias-oil-war-who-are-niger-delta-militants-1520580

Oh my word that might also be why the EU hasn't jumped straight on it yet

Still, oil companies can straighten up their acts when they know people are watching, and Nigeria is the second largest gas producer in the world after Russia so it makes sense. Also notable is that we've trained 1,000 Nigerian soldiers and have about a dozen and a half advisers down there helping the Nigerians clean up Boko Haram so once they sorted out the less cooperative and more spontaneous militias can be dealt with too. They've got a point in that they've been dicked over pretty hard, but when you damage your own infrastructure you're just gaining a larger share of making yourself poorer. Notably of the three foreign oil companies expressing interest in building the pipeline, one of them is Gazprom. Seems Russia is not stupid, but Nigeria and Algeria if they know whats best for them have the means to do this on their own, maybe hiring foreign consultants at most. Europe will always benefit from this pipeline but whether they themselves do is in their hands. There is also the issue of passing through Islamist and Tuareg rebel areas in addition to the Niger Delta militias and... Well, that will be an issue. But I think even with them once the pipeline is set up even with security costs it will at least be self-paying.

There is another alternative, one that is not plagued by militiants but has pretty much only not been built yet because of opposition by Iran and Russia, the trans-Caspian gas pipeline, this one is the more famous proposed project because whereas the trans-Saharan pipeline would cost $20B to move 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas through militant held areas from Nigeria to Spain, the trans-Caspian pipeline would cost $20B to move that same volume from Turkmenistan to Turkey (and then right onto the EU). I like the latter more because it would be less prone to being blown up, Russian-Turkey relations aside. That and when there is ecological damage in the Caspian it does not create militiant armies the same way spills in Nigeria are turning fishermen and farmers into warlords. Plus all the trans-Caspian pipeline really needs is Turkmenistan's approval and support since pretty much all of the EU states and Turkey agree this pipeline would be awesome and force Russia to compete more rather than feel safe in gas supplying.

Unrelated to oil and related to UK-EU trade statistics, the Rotterdam effect, in which UK imports from around the world are logged as coming from the EU as they stop off at other ports like Rotterdam and then make their way to Southampton, Liverpool or London e.t.c.
It makes neat statistics like Ireland being a powerful banana mogul when they're really just exporting all the bananas that stop off in Ireland from South and Central America, so keep that in mind in that my statistics may actually be over-representing UK-EU trade, because international commerce is a complex and entangled thing of moving parts that move beyond national boundaries.

I also like the trans-Saharan pipeline idea though, and I think over time the militias will be overcome. Just look at this:

A British Trade Mission, led by the Director of Africa House, London, Mr Emmanuel Obasi, is seeking
collaboration with the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs to fast track development in the region.
Obasi made this known during a courtesy visit to the ministry on Tuesday in Abuja.
He said that the mission was satisfied with the anti-corruption fight of the present administration, which encouraged the investors to visit the country.
According to him, the mission is in the country to introduce British companies willing to work with Nigeria.
He added that the ministry had provided the mission with an overview of the direction of the government in unemployment, infrastructure and peace in the region.
Obasi, therefore, pledged the team’s readiness to work in the areas of construction and skills acquisition.
He further said that the mission was interested in raising the level of education in the region which, he noted, had gone down drastically over the years.
According to Obasi, Nigerians in the Diaspora will build schools and improve the quality of teachers and wipe out illiteracy.
Also I had to check at least rudimentally just to make sure, as when doing business in Nigeria you must always know whether the person you are doing business with exists Emmanuel Obasi exists.

This will have a cumulative effect of making stable, self-improving countries with people given the tools to provide for themselves. The UK has it easier because of the Commonwealth, but there is no fight here. Rather, I am fighting this notion of the fighting. The people like Gunther seem to believe that the people of Europe will believe in the Commission if they learn to fear failure without them, whilst I maintain that that is wrong, the people of Greece for example would not care a lick or not if Finland could be doing more if they were in the EU or not than if they themselves are doing well. So the ministers like him make plans to try and cripple UK, or at the least threaten our politicians with notions of it, whilst I would much prefer spending my time thinking of plans that enrich everyone.
The way I see it is this, Germany cannot destroy the UK, but Germany destroying herself is also wasted potential; not just for herself but also for the UK. I am wary of the Germans however having a track record of plunging Europe into turmoil and bankruptcy over their social projects, and am very glad at the least that this time around they are more restrained by Czechki Czechs, Poles and Franks. Just look at the trans-Saharan pipeline, this is a pipeline from which everyone can benefit from, the UK, Spain, Germany, Algeria, Nigeria, even the locals can all benefit from this. It's not a zero-sum game, it's why even in my earlier suggestions on how to deal with Russia I also proposed closer economic cooperation with the Russians. We can build trans-Caspian pipelines and cut the Russian jugular and make many steps to destroy them but then what? It leaves a giant poor highly populated and heavily armed country right on Europe's borderless borders, you'd be a fool to think there is any profit in that. And unless you planned to subsequently genocide the Russians, they'd be coming for you. Nah, what we needed to have done is to build the pipeline anyways, but at the same time help the Russians diversify their economy (and help them get over their phobia of accepting foreign shekels). Make so much wealth for everyone that war becomes obsolete. Consider this, why does Russia oppose the pipeline? They want to keep their gas hold on Europe that is vital for their economy. Why does Europe want it? They want gas that can't be used against them as leverage. There is a very obvious solution here to give everyone what they want: LOADSA SHEKELS

Well, more complex than that. You get the idea, when it comes to gas-pipelines the UK and the EU would both benefit greatly from additional pipelines. Convince people that democracy is pointless and enlightened bureaucracies are the future by making the EU actually enriching, not just culturally enriching! Europe has already had thousands of years of that before the Commission!
But tying this all to the first, first point - the pipelines are not completed and so are still just... PIPE DREAMS


YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH


In other news:

"No one," he said on Feb. 9, "should forget how the Soviet forces, which were a mighty, super force during the Cold War and entered Afghanistan, then left Afghanistan in a servile situation. Those who entered Syria today will also leave Syria in a servile way." In other words, Davutoglu was telling the Russians: Get out of Syria; we are coming in. The Russians did not even reply. They just kept on bombing.

Top kek
I hope Obama really stops this madness. Turkish military is not actually that bad, and Saudi's air force is decent, but their ground forces are too reliant on American mercenaries because they don't trust their soldiers to not mutiny, which is a big problem when today's militaries work off of highly-skilled individuals operating heavy equipment that requires a lot of trust to operate and hold the knowledge of its maintenance. I feel like Mohammed bin Salman is going to learn one of those new adages like 'don't invade Russia in winter' or 'if you're the USA never start a land war in Asia' in that you should 'never ever take the sectarian b8.' Again, for those that don't know, Mohammed bin Salman is the youngest defence minister in the world with no experience or education in defence and is pretty much only in that position to give him legitimacy as crown prince.

At this point I don't think anyone has enough shekels and shillings in the world to fix the fuckup it has become.
Crossposting from the religion thread:

I find it odd that they acknowledge the Christian faiths broke each other but then also think warring with the Shia won't end up with the same fate for them ???

Well no that's different because that was infidels fighting each other but this is The One True Faith™ fighting infidels so it's totally different.

Never take sectarian b8
Obama bruh don't fuck this up
bruh

Saudi and Turk military closing ranks on Syria
BRUH

[SirQuiamus]

currently the UK are all that's keeping millions on Europe's doorstep from either dying or desperately trying to make it to Germany, and hundreds of millions all across the world including in some of the most popular origins for European illegal migrants, Pakistan just being one example. No British aid = no home future = off to Germany in numbers that would be culturally enriching on a scale never before seen.

wut wut WUT

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

As you can see, UK's foreign aid has amounted to a whopping ~14% of the total from all DAC countries in recent years, but you're claiming that your country is single-handedly supporting the world?

Speaking of, I am worried there is a real possibility that German statesmen and women either do not know or do not care about their economic relationship with the UK and the UK's relationship with refugees, or indeed Germany's ability to cope. Consider that I had to search many government statistics and such to get good numbers, there was not a single news source that posted everything in plain sight. Ha! Germany could actually commit to a trade war. Let's hope ignorance does not prevail, and let's hope my government does not stop their humanitarian aid.

lelelel, is this blackmail?

You sure know how to be checkki brecckki even when you're being totes srs: based UK is Atlas and Cuckgermans are going "NO ATLAS, PLS NO SHRUG"?

maximum kek

[Loud Whispers]

You sure know how to be checkki brecckki even when you're being totes srs: based UK is Atlas and Cuckgermans are going "NO ATLAS, PLS NO SHRUG"?
maximum kek

Zero kek

As you can see, UK's foreign aid has amounted to a whopping ~14% of the total from all DAC countries in recent years, but you're claiming that your country is single-handedly supporting the world?

No, where did I claim that?

Spoiler: spoilerd because semi-skimmed milk is for ninnies (click to show/hide)

But again, I'm assuming that the global economy doesn't collapse, which is quite a foolish assumption as it tends to do it every now and then. Finance is only as strong as peoples' confidence in it, which saps quite quickly during said collapse. What then? What possible leverage does the UK still have?
I don't see where you got the notion that the UK has no leverage, as you do not post sources. Germany's dug herself a hole deep enough to swallow up the English Channel's precious liquids. Our absence would be felt by Germany to be sure.
http://i.imgur.com/zmHvgLB.png
That's from this. It is also from 2013, ignoring that the UK aid budget has actually increased by a billion and a few hundred million. We are punching so far above our weight on the humanitarian scale you wouldn't even believe, it honestly puts the wealthier Germany to shame - and as Antioch points out, with tens of millions of Sterling the British government has been able to provide for millions of war victims (can't even call them refugees because they are so under threat they cannot even flee), even managing to deliver aid through areas of Syria without permission from Assad to areas otherwise ruled by ISIS. And again, that's helping millions with just tens of millions of our multi-billion pound sterling aid budget, with so much of our foreign aid going towards helping billions of people from BRIC to Africa get education, get water, get food - acquire the tools needed to build their own families up and to build their own country up so they don't have to rely on foreign aid anymore. We also possess one of the only two blue water navies and the military needed to ensure this aid can get past insurgents, our military advisers have trained 350,000 local police in Afghanistan alone, our military intelligence is only rivaled by the likes of USA, France, Russia and China, our air force has currently already forced ISIS to halve their pay after their banks and oil fields were blown up by our planes, our instructors have alongside the French also been training government forces in building their own strong militaries to take on their own insurgents like Boko Haram - so what if Germany succeeds in economically destroying its apparent friend and ally the UK?

All Royal Navy patrols in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean cease, to focus on the Atlantic. That means losing out on the world's foremost mine clearing fleet and losing out on all of our humanitarian patrols. Our troops have to be withdrawn from abroad so you lose access to our military trainers as they just can't be paid or kept safe and whatever regional instability occurs is out of our hands. Our foreign aid budget would have to be drastically cut as a multi-billion pound sterling foreign aid budget cannot be maintained on a collapsed economy. What you end up with is hundreds of millions of people suddenly losing out on the basic necessities of life with pirates and insurgents roaming about freely and no barriers to making the journey northwards to Germany, with only death waiting at home.

If we don't pay for India's poor, their government likely won't. For starters there's fucking loads of them, whilst India's tax base is quite small and they do not want to harm their ludicrously expanding economy by scaring away their moguls with wealth distribution (which they can't effectively enforce, lacking a powerful justice system relatively free from corruption as the UK). There are also shadows of the caste system looming overhead, so their elite will not help their undercastes whilst foreigners have no issue. India is of the Commonwealth, its citizens are in need whilst its government is still developing and centralizing the country - this is the UK-USA path I was talking about earlier. India is rapidly growing, but it has not yet reached its full potential, it cannot yet fully support its own citizens. If we drop that aid, the risk of instability from central and western asia or southeast asia spreading into India would be the greatest horror in humanitarian catastrophe since the last Chinese civil war or WWII.

As for the rest, I have mixed feelings. I'd like to support the Commonwealth - we have ties that are worth preserving if we can. They've helped us in the past, and perhaps they'll help us in the future. But being allies in a world war is different than us handing out pocket money. And it's hard to shake the feeling that in the modern age, we, as a country, are laughed at for being a soft touch. We're giving money to China and India, both countries with huge economies. And we're giving money to a myriad of smaller countries who are more a nuisance to us than anything resembling a help.

"A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinion of a sheep." - Trywin Lannister
The Germans in WWI laughed at the British until their rifles opened fire. Not all problems can be solved by sending in the lads though, you can't grasp a butterfly in the grip of an iron fist, and Billy no mates die fast whilst the British still remain. Currently there are tens of millions of children already who have benefited off of British aid, the knock on effects of these kids growing up well and working for their nations will give them more wealth and allow them to provide for their own families and by extension, reach a point where their governments can provide for them. When you see they can't afford water, pencils, paper, soap - having to borrow a little more money to provide it for them keeps our civil servants busy and our humanitarian mission alive. Let the Germans call us racist, let the Russians call us cheeki monkeys, let the Chinese call us the setting sun, let the Americans forget we even exist. When millions of children every year can pick up a book they actually have the literacy to read, when they aren't dying from voiding their bowels or coughing up their lungs - who gives a fuck if we aren't thanked for it, we've undisputedly done the right thing. Plus some of our aid goes not towards making people dependent on us or their governments, but towards giving them the basic tools they need to stand on their feet and hold their government accountable for their actions. No poor nation can get foreign investment coming in in meaningful amounts with a corrupt government, and a corrupt government cannot be purged without either an authoritarian leader like Ataturk or Lee Kuan Yew or a grassroots movement by the people, who with access to the global economy can project their own power and link up with other like minded people.

This is what I wrote before in defence of the UK's large foreign aid budget. I am actually not spouting a popular belief in the UK, as most in the UK think we have spent too much, and not many agree with me on this at all, left-wing or right-wing, progressive or conservative. It is getting increasingly harder to justify increasing our foreign aid budget whilst we cut our own healthcare spending or defence spending for example.
In the event of Germany trying to damage the British economy the first thing that goes is the foreign aid budget as it is the only multibillion pound area of state spending that can be cut without affecting any Brits at all.
Migrants from Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, China, Syria, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have all been coming to Europe. Pakistan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, India and Bangladesh have been the top five beneficiaries of bilateral British aid. China (£27M), Syria (£1.1B) and Afghanistan (£182M) have all been massive recipients of British aid, with the addition that the UK has trained 350,000 soldiers and police in Afghanistan to help the country stop getting taliban'd.
And that's not even taking into account that whilst we gave aid for the Syrians being kept alive in Jordan and Turkey, the EU failed to deliver the billions of Euros it promised Erdogan.
All the people Britain helps, all the refugees and countries Britain is developing - they would get left on their own. Their people would have only one place to go: Europe. Britain would still control the channel, whereas Germany has already destroyed all of Europe's barriers and are already lost under the millions of annual migrants. To paraphrase Erdogan:
“We do not have the word ‘idiot’ written on our foreheads." Neither do the German people. The likes of Gunther? Unsurprisingly, it is the mind of the short sighted that brought us into one mess, it will be the minds of the short sighted bringing us potentially to another.

Just by British inaction would the EU be destroyed. We as Europol forumites have been surprised as the humanitarian crisis for Germany scaled from tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands to millions by the year, currently the UK are all that's keeping millions on Europe's doorstep from either dying or desperately trying to make it to Germany, and hundreds of millions all across the world including in some of the most popular origins for European illegal migrants, Pakistan just being one example. No British aid = no home future = off to Germany in numbers that would be culturally enriching on a scale never before seen.
This is not even taking into consideration a British withdrawal from Eastern Europe and Germany, letting Russia do as they wish in the East. This is not even taking into consideration what would happen if the UK were to treat Germany the same way her ministers treat us (seriously why haven't you replaced them yet). Britain does not threaten Germany with existential destruction because Britain considers Germany as friends, and through a foreign policy which costs the UK a lot of money Germany is not broken by biblical migration and powerful neighbours. Hostility goes on a two way street, now you can safely bankrupt Greece and repossess her assets but you don't try to take on the UK like that. I don't even need to go into the past in how every time Germany went up in hostility to the UK the UK won, I'm talking today. Some people seem to be mistaken ITT when I argue for a path of Anglo-German cooperation, friendship and business, thinking that means the UK is in a position of weakness or supplication and that Germany has already won Britain. That is why I posted the earlier article about the difference between German Realpolitik and British politik, showing the difference between how Germany acted without caring for public or international opinion whilst Britain did for example. And today we see things like Germany forcing lesser nations to act in line via economic domination and regulation whilst the UK pursues a path of economic cooperation with as many nations as it possibly can, or in how Germany tried to solve its demographic problem with a humanitarian problem and just created two demographic and humanitarian problems whilst the UK took on more successfully by simply being honest and keeping its mission objectives well-defined and achievable.

No really, where?
I'm fine with banter but lying me gets zero toleran from me. The United Kingdoms is not holding up the world and I never claimed it was, it's helping hundreds of millions of people out of a global population of billions.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This was the world population around 1900

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is the world population in the current century
The reason why the UK -> US path works is that the great influx of aid provides a cushion for drought/war induced famine and the evolution into foreign investment creates a self-sustaining, powerful and stable country that provides for its own people. They can turn their large population into power, to master their own future.

I've even already planned as much knowing that the UK path of development alone would be insufficient in the long run out of a population of billions, there's not enough foreign aid in the world that can feed, cloth, heal and provide for so many billions. They have to be given the infrastructure and education to build a future for themselves. That whopping 14% is just that, whopping. The second largest in the world where we're giving an Iceland's worth of aid away every year. If it gets cut that's 4 million Syrians no one else is providing for whilst Erdogan is pissed off that the EU failed to give him any money and hundreds of millions of people from the countries providing most of the illegal immigration to Europe already. It is ludicrous to expect that the UK can still afford the second largest aid budget in the world during a trade war with Brussels, as again, in Britain people like me are already having trouble justifying such a large foreign aid budget whilst we cut our own healthcare or defence. The impact to so many countries would be terrible; the cumulative effects of all the education, medicine, food and water going caput - Germany cannot afford nor handle millions, she would not survive hundreds of millions.

lelelel, is this blackmail?

Do you know what blackmail means? It is the use of threats or embarrassing information to force someone to do something. If you can explain to me how the UK would be able to commit to military operations and the second largest humanitarian mission in the world whilst at a trade war against Brussels then be my guest; this whole thing started off with German ministers trying to blackmail Britain into giving up the fight for independence on threat of crippling tariffs. Do you understand how consequences work? I understand the UK has powerful shekel magic but in the worst possible scenario where Germany finds the mechanisms to implement crippling tariffs, overcome their dependency upon the UK, force China, Turkey, Indonesia, Zambia, Nigeria, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, the USA, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan into giving up their ties and trade deals with the UK - we are not an island, and what our shekel magic would fail to conjure would be cut first from our foreign aid budget. Pensions, debt repayment, defence, the national health service - these cannot be cut, so the foreign aid budget is cut. Which as a country like Germany who is losing her tax base to old age and cultural enrichment and no borders, would have no hopes in heaven of coping. We would have no choice but to cut our foreign aid budget, whereas Germany has a very clear choice to just stop employing ministers who try to blackmail my country.

[SirQuiamus]

I'm fine with banter but lying me gets zero toleran from me. The United Kingdoms is not holding up the world and I never claimed it was, it's helping hundreds of millions of people out of a global population of billions.

sry m8, I shouldn't have responded to hyperbole with more hyperbole.

That whopping 14% is just that, whopping. The second largest in the world where we're giving an Iceland's worth of aid away every year. If it gets cut that's 4 million Syrians no one else is providing for whilst Erdogan is pissed off that the EU failed to give him any money and hundreds of millions of people from the countries providing most of the illegal immigration to Europe already.

See what I mean? You are apparently implying – correct me if I'm wrong – that the UK is the only country in the world helping Syrians on the spot. And I say ^{[citation needed]}.

Here's some citations for you:
This thing says that the UK's direct humanitarian funding into Syria was exactly 14.9% of the grand total in 2015, whereas this thing for the current year is mysteriously lacking any mention of your country (is this eurocuck propaganda or what?). You could also take a look at the statistics from UNHCR's Syria response program, where the UK's contribution is right behind USA and Kuwait in 2015, and again, strangely absent from the data for 2016.

No-one can deny that the United Kingdoms are shovelling imperial fucktons of money into Syria, but it's kinda hard to argue that you're the only ones doing anything.

[Loud Whispers]

sry m8, I shouldn't have responded to hyperbole with more hyperbole.

You didn't you cheeki monki

See what I mean? You are apparently implying – correct me if I'm wrong – that the UK is the only country in the world helping Syrians on the spot.

That implication is wrong

Sorted

I write 6,000 words stating exactly what I mean and explicitly tell people to stop trying to think or assume what I think instead of what I am clearly saying and people do it anyways

bay10/bay12

[wobbly]

As you can see, UK's foreign aid has amounted to a whopping ~14% of the total from all DAC countries in recent years, but you're claiming that your country is single-handedly supporting the world?

No, where did I claim that?

Claiming it as in literally claiming it? no. But seeing as you've decided to play dumb even though he quoted you inches above your response. Even though neither me or you think your dumb & you actually know what he's refering to, I decided to quote it again.

currently the UK are all that's keeping millions on Europe's doorstep from either dying or desperately trying to make it to Germany, and hundreds of millions all across the world including in some of the most popular origins for European illegal migrants, Pakistan just being one example. No British aid = no home future = off to Germany in numbers that would be culturally enriching on a scale never before seen.

P.S. You raise so many interesting points. You back your opinion with your sources. Why the need or desire for BS games?

[Flying Dice]

Probably because being continually argued around is annoying when you're trying to argue in good faith. Much easier to weave in bants to get some satisfaction if people are going to misrepresent your points anyways.

[Sergarr]

P.S. You raise so many interesting points. You back your opinion with your sources. Why the need or desire for BS games?

Because people have preferred to answer his posts in the past (before LW went full-banter mode) with "you're wrong, but I won't explain precisely why or post any actual sources that prove you wrong, instead I'll refer to basic principles of an ideology I believe in and "common knowledge" related to said ideology". Or find one single "weakest" point in his post and argue against it (usually without sources, as well, just on pure ideological principles), while ignoring the rest of it.

The banter has proven to be extremely successful at shutting down these kinds of responses, which undoubtedly has made it more fun for LW to post.

[wobbly]

Also makes it incredibly annoying to read for people who bother to take the time (such as me). You know, I was going to post something longer here, but I think I'll just wait for LWs answer.

Actually I will write something more. When your outspoken (LW is) & have a controversial opinion (in terms of Bay 12 LW does) & are happy to be insulting to people who disagree with your opinions (re read his post if you don't think he slings insults left, right & centre at groups of people with the opposing view point) then you're gotta expect to cop some flak back. Fair is fair after all.