What countries do you think will be Great Powers in 2040? My opinion in alphabetical order:
Oh no, not the poo bombs!
Can someone at least say why they don't think the UK will be a Great Power in 2040?
Indications are that we will be at least top 3 or 4 in most elements of power:
Top 4 economy
Top 3 navy/power projection
Top 1 or 2 in soft power
Nuclear weapons and permanent security council members etc.
So I don't understand your reactions. Can someone explain?
>The fact you put yourselves above USA
It's an alphabetical order you moron. I did it alphabetically to try and avoid insulting anyone. Wow I didn't think anons were THIS stupid.
Pic related and link related
No they don't, Germany is in decline. See >>53085297
India should have overtaken us ages ago, they have over a billion people. During the British Empire, India had a larger economy than the UK.
Anyway, India will overtake us but we will definitely pass Germany and have a good chance of taking Japan too. So we should move up to 4th place. We were 3rd at our peak in the Victorian Era.
France and Italy don't face any exclusion, well done citing a literal non-newspaper
Yes, exactly like the last crisis. And Japan has overtaken the USA. USSR is America's competitor.
Great. The world doesn't change, everything will keep going like it is at the moment.
>Top 1 or 2 in soft power
This is also lol. You are just using that because you are currently (in one of several rankings) the #1 (which was Germany the year before and I think the USA before that).
>Top 4 economy
UK isn't even top 4 right now and India is going to surpass you in the near future.
>Top 3 navy/power projection
>Top 1 or 2 in soft power
Denmark is a top10 soft power. It's a literally worthless.
Meaningless as long as you're in NATO.
>permanent security council members etc.
Nothing is permanent.
>But you would be nothing without Russia.
We were actually A THING without pesky asian mongols sticking into our business.
Fuck off back to steppes, Moskal. Russia was always a poor shithole.
>UK isn't even top 4 right now and India is going to surpass you in the near future.
We are top 5 right now. India will surpass us, but we'll surpass Germany and Japan. Becoming the top European economy will also give us a boost
It should be common knowledge but pic related will do. That's the situation in 2015, we're in the top 3, and in the next decade the navy is going to expand including 2 new aircraft carriers and more overseas bases.
>Denmark is a top10 soft power. It's a literally worthless.
Only worthless when you're too weak to combine it with other forms of power, such has hard power and economic power.
>Meaningless as long as you're in NATO.
No it isn't, nuclear weapons are a diplomatic tool. They buy you access to the top tables of diplomacy.
>Nothing is permanent.
Bear this in mind as you read the first line of your post again.
Why don't we just use the growth rates from 2010 and use them as our base for forecasts? Back then Germany had a growth rate of 4.1% and the UK only 1.5%. Well, guess the UK will never even come close to our size :) Too bad
You guys are so stupid. I said in the OP it's alphabetical order. I'm not commenting on which of those countries will be more powerful. Alphabetical is the most neutral way I could write the post.
Because it's about more than projecting past growth rates forward. If you only take past GDP into account then you're an idiot. You have to take things like pic related into account. (UK is roughly equal to the US in this chart).
And no, millions of illiterate young gentlemen from MENA will not make up the shortfall
You should learn french if you wanna to live in a relevant country.
Tu dois étudier français si tu veux habiter une pays pertinente.
India GDP growth
UK GDP growth
>Because it's about more than projecting past growth rates forward. If you only take past GDP into account then you're an idiot. You have to take things like pic related into account. (UK is roughly equal to the US in this chart).
You'd have to be an idiot to think it won't change. Russia had the same problem (even worse) and its population is growing faster than the USA's now
Again: Japan surpassed or is equal to the USA. Oh, that didn't happen
>And no, millions of illiterate young gentlemen from MENA will not make up the shortfall
But it's the same in your country, just that you get more Africans, Pakistanis and Indians.
Good one Ivan
That anon was indulging in some banter. It's obvious that India will overtake us. That's nothing to be ashamed of, historically even when we were much more powerful, we had a smaller economy than China and India
>Russia had the same problem (even worse) and its population is growing faster than the USA's now
Meant the birth rate. If Russia's death rate wasn't that high their population growth would be pretty high.
>But it's the same in your country, just that you get more Africans, Pakistanis and Indians.
Except for the Indians, but the Indians we get are highly educated.
>You'd have to be an idiot to think it won't change
There is space for that ratio to change but not by much. You have to understand there are two important variables in that ratio. Turning up the birth rate doesn't make your old people disappear. You need dramatic increases in the birth rate, and/or high immigration (of people who can integrate into the workforce!) to bring your graph to the UK's level
I wasn't talking about immigration.
>Over a quarter of births (26.5%) in 2013 were to mothers born outside the UK, a slight increase from 2012 (25.9%).
>The total fertility rate (TFR) for UK born women has fallen to 1.79 from 1.90 in 2012.
>The TFR for non-UK born women has fallen to 2.19 from 2.29 in 2012.
>Poland, Pakistan and India were the three most common countries of birth for non-UK born mothers in 2013.
>Pakistan remains the most common country of birth for non-UK born fathers between 2008 and 2013, followed by Poland and India.
It could change like in this picture (with a much lower death rate = higher growth), the same could happen to your country, just that it'd go down (which it does).
To be fair India basically does whatever it wants to increase it's GDP including worker and environmental exploitation, the UK abides by international laws and in that sense is constrained by them, so I'm not really surprised by those figures. At some point it's going to become a major problem for them.
>It could change like in this picture (with a much lower death rate = higher growth)
Germany is not Russia. Germany already has a low death rate, there is not much space to push it down. The birth rate need to rise like phoenix. Conchita was right.
>I wasn't talking about immigration.
I was talking about immigration, obviously. That's how the new younger people are coming into Germany. I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject.
>Germany is not Russia. Germany already has a low death rate, there is not much space to push it down. The birth rate need to rise like phoenix. Conchita was right.
That's exactly what I said? Germany has a low death rate, Russia doesn't. Russia would grow like fuck if its death rate was as low as ours. Our birth rate wouldn't have to rise a lot to get even a little bit of growth
>I was talking about immigration, obviously. That's how the new younger people are coming into Germany. I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject.
what does that have to do with "changing the subject"? I told you you are getting people like that too, just from inside the country, not from outside. There's almost no difference, your growth doesn't come from native Brits
>I told you you are getting people like that too, just from inside the country, not from outside. There's almost no difference, your growth doesn't come from native Brits
But that's wrong, it is not the same. Children who are brought up in the British education system do not become illiterate, they do not lose an education they gain one. And they are more likely to share British values if they're born and bred here, rather than come here from abroad.
>they don't understand that special relations makes us a US state and thus super powerful
Interesting battle, thank you. I had never heard of it.
OP here, the empire is long gone and I don't expect it to come back. Indeed a colonial empire would be a huge waste of taxpayers money. You don't need an empire to be a great power, and there are other ways to expand one's influence
>We are top 5 right now. India will surpass us, but we'll surpass Germany and Japan.
Japan has 120 million people. You will never surpass them.
Top Economics in 2030:
the only twice thing your country has is arabian and nigger dick in your asshole
>Japan has 120 million people. You will never surpass them.
Yes we will. We are in a Single Market with 500 million other consumers. The market is about to go digital and open up properly to services. Eric Schmidt mentioned the potential of this with regards to e-commerce
We have loads of other advantages over Japan. Larger workforce, much less debt, more stable location, more open economy, more modern economy - the UK is the first big western country where services exports will outstrip goods exports in value. That matters because services retain a higher value while manufacturing is mostly a race to the bottom.
He is not wrong you know.
You are turning into a Paki colony.
depends how much you believe cherry-picked daily mail articles and photos from shitty london boroughs are really representative of our country
which according to everything i see here, you guys seem to
india is already beating you though
>EU (if it federalizes)
I would agree only if each nation can decide on boarder control.
Also their should be a law which makes people integrate into our society. If they dont they will have to leave.
I would much rather like it if the interior borders of the EU get deleted and the exterior borders of the EU become more militarized and guarded than the Korean DMZ
Also mass muslim deportation just to be safe
>Also mass muslim deportation just to be safe
Yh however if they can integrate within a few months they can stay if they can''t then they get deported.
But knowing Muslims they can't Integrate
It's highly unlikely we'll lose our status, India will probably join the club though, France and Russia will maybe go downhill
>India will probably join the club though, France and Russia will maybe go downhill
That was my reasoning too. When you add India, and remove France and Russia, you get the 4 countries I put in the OP.
I see your picture has Germany and Japan but I don't think they can be seriously considered as Great Powers
btw visit polonezköy if you haven't already, it's pretty based.
t. tourism pro
True... We will grow because of our sheer numbers, India has more poor than middle class and mostly the growth will be driven by poor becoming middle class..
Also our growth depends on our current govt keeping the course and staying in power for the future... If Indian Congress makes a comeback we are fucked for sure
>2020 China fragments
return of an emperor would be cool desu
We're a top 5 economy and slated to become a top 4 economy. PPP has no bearing on power. PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity, it's about cost of living.
Russia is considered a Great Power by many today, its economy is 13th. France is also considered a Great Power, it is 6th.
Can you put together a coherent argument please?
>We're a top 5 economy and slated to become a top 4 economy.
Your slated to be knocked out of the top 5 by India. Russia and Brazil have a better chance of being top 5 than you by 2040.
>Your slated to be knocked out of the top 5 by India.
Read the thread. We're slated to be overtaken by India, but the same forecast says we will overtake Germany and Japan ourselves. One step back and two steps forward puts us into 4th place.
>Russia and Brazil have a better chance of being top 5 than you by 2040.
My sides! Are you the entertainment?
>PPP doesn't matter for economic power
>hurdur Japan lost 30% of its economic power in 2013
Okay guys here's the simple nominal versus PPP answer to settle the perrenial debate.
Lots of fluctuations
Exchange rates are generally not free floating
Doesn't measure living standards well
Accurate for trade measurement and financial services
Measures living standards well
Inaccurate for trade and financial services
Overestimates some countries economic power (power being ability to utilize the economy to make other countries do what you want)
The best measurement:
An IMF based measurement of the nominal GDP value in terms of the six SDR currencies averaged over 5 years. This averages the best traits of both PPP and nominal.
>Russia and Brazil have a better chance of being top 5 than you by 2040.
Russia had a huge demographic collapse and only recently reversed it, their education system is also shoddy and their economy isn't exactly in the best shape. It will take them 15-20 years just for policies today to boost the number of people in the work force.
Brazil also has huge infrastructural problems and their economy was based upon heavily exporting to China which has slowed down.
Brazil and Russia will be Great Powers, but they won't overtake the UK.
I recognise you and expect better from you. This is a cheap and lazy post. Let's look at your greentext:
>PPP doesn't matter for economic power
>hurdur Japan lost 30% of its economic power in 2013
These two statements do not logically follow. I can believe the first statement, reject the second and agree with your conclusion:
>An IMF based measurement of the nominal GDP value in terms of the six SDR currencies averaged over 5 years.
Because your conclusion is a modified nominal GDP, it does not use Purchasing Power Parity. It is less volatile - that does not make it PPP.
Put simply, relative cost of living for citizens has NO relevance to a state's economic power on the international stage.
That jewish idiot thought poland and turkey would have 10 percent GDP growth in 2015-2016
>Now poland is at 1.7% and turkey would be -2%
Well I stand by what I posted.
You said PPP has no bearing on power.
I would assume since you are arguing using nominal figures, you believe nominal has bearing on power.
The truth is neither nominal nor PPP are accurate, nominal simply is a little more accurate because the large PPP countries are generally still backwards. But both measurements have bearing on power.
You can't possibly argue that Japan lost 30% of its economic power or Russia 70% in one year because exchange rates changed.
I stated in my post that PPP tends to overstimate economic power( the ability to use the economy to exert influence.)
I argue for a nominal value based upon a basket of currencies that is less volatile, because volatility is what kills accuracy.
I wasn't defending pure nominal GDP as the best reflection of economic power, but while it is flawed it DOES at least reflect power. I am not arguing that Russia lost 70% of its economic power in one year, indeed in an earlier post I highlighted the fact that Russia is 13th yet seen as a great power as a reason why nominal GDP isn't a straightforward power ranking by itself.
The only useful thing I can see from GDP (PPP) measurements with regard to power, is that it puts high population countries near the top. Population amplifies economic power because it gives you a larger domestic market. But PPP is still unnecessary. All you need is the GDP nominal figure and the actual population.
What I disliked about your post is that you put words in my mouth - the argument is not a zero sum game. Criticising PPP does not mean I think nominal GDP is without problems. I agree with you that a less volatile measure is preferable.
I honestly didn't mean to cause you butthurt, any more than I did to Russia, Germany and others I left out. I even resisted the temptation of doing a power ranking and put them in alphabetical order in order to avoid a shitstorm but it happened anyway.
I was hoping for more suggestions of top Great Powers in 2040. Instead I got
because the uk isn't even a power today and can't compete with the new emerging powers
the only thing you guys can brag about is defeating argentina which isn't really an accomplishment
a mixture of military, economic, and living standards
you are on the same level as germany and france in terms of military, economy, and living standards.
germany has more power then you in the eu
you don't have power in abroad you don't have power in europe.
since I don't see germany as a world power why would I see a nation thats beneath germany as a world power?
ya and germany's isn't something to write home about
look at that gap from the top 4 to britian and the rest
there's not much you can do alone with that few troops. you guys can't stand without NATO.
also 2 of your former colonies are higher than you.
To avoid embarrassing yourself like this in the future, I recommend actually learning about something before you talk about it.
And I don't mean linking to a GFP table. Get a grip, do some *basic* research and come back.
>>53084786 Russian Empire. And you still have loads of time to learn our language.
The Frogs deserve to be classified as a Great Power.
germany isn't a world power and you aren't a world power
do you remember the scandal when merkel found out that the nsa bugged her phone and the phones of her top officials. what did germany do about the fact that another country was spying on thier government? nothing, there was nothing they could do but stamp and pout since USA beats them economically and militarily. if the same situation were to happen with uk instead of germany the same result would happen.
>germany isn't a world power and you aren't a world power
You don't know anything about the German and British militaries so how can you possibly come to this conclusion
The British military has a GLOBAL presence and a blue water navy which is capable of supporting global operations. Would you like to compare this to the German military?
>Top 4 economy
Not by a long shot. And even then, we have another property bubble growing in the South East, that's going to cause problems.
>Top 3 navy/power projection
Nope, top 10 maybe...
But even then, we can't maintain it, we're spending far more than we have to maintain a fleet we really don't need. Hence, why so many shipyards have closed.
>Top 1 or 2 in soft power
its laughable that you think that tiny amount of spread out as fuck bases and ports means you have a strong military.
you are not a world power
>couple of small as fuck overseas islands and ports
Air bases, army bases, some navy ports big enough to service aircraft carriers and many that can supply warships. Moving between them we have an auxiliary fleet and aerial logistics second only to the Americans.
If you weren't a drooling moron you would understand that global military power is built on logistics, a worldwide network is necessary, if you don't have it you can't act. It doesn't matter how many tanks, or fighter aircraft you have, when you can't put them where you want them.
Here we go, I wondered when you'd get desperate enough to change the subject to "USA strong"
I know you're an idiot, but you must remember that you said our military is on the same level as Germany's. I've presented proof of your bullshit and you're trying to change the subject. It's pathetic, you can't admit you are wrong.
Also just because the USA is a stronger world power doesn't mean the UK isn't a world power. This should be easy enough to understand. The British military is capable of global operations, therefore it is a global military power. Only three countries can be said to have this capability: the US, France and the UK.
Have you bothered to check German capabilities or is that beyond you? Even some wikipedia articles would do you some good. If you're older than 15 and unironically posting this stuff I'm going to laugh
>I know you're an idiot, but you must remember that you said our military is on the same level as Germany's. I've presented proof of your bullshit and you're trying to change the subject. It's pathetic, you can't admit you are wrong.
germany doesn't need bases since there so close to the middle east the only region that matters to them militarily. just like the uk they are not a fighting nation and they know that.
the bases you posted are way too spread out to really be effective against a sudden threat. you know the reason why you have so few bases, because you have no oversea interests you need to protect besides the falklands which you have 3 bases on and is useless.
>Current temperature in Moscow: -21°C
>germany doesn't need bases since there so close to the middle east the only region that matters to them militarily.
I'm pretty sure even you don't understand yourself. One of the UK's most valuable bases is Cyprus, because it allows the RAF to project air power over all the Middle-East hotspots without needing an aircraft carrier. Needless to say, this is something the Germans can't do.
>the bases you posted are way too spread out to really be effective against a sudden threat
Just... what? The point of the bases is to keep a military force supplied and allow projection of power. Since the British does operate globally all year round, and has successfully pulled off independent military operations in places as far away as the Far East (Malaysia), Africa (Sierra Leone) and the South Atlantic (Falklands), I'm unsure why you think the network is inadequate.
>because you have no oversea interests you need to protect
There's another big fat lie.
The punchline of the joke is this post coming from an Austrian. I mean, really. Steady on.
Yeah an island like Pitcairn with 56 inhabitants in the middle of bumfuck nowhere sure provides great logistical advantages, kek
And please don't call yourself a world power. The only world power is the USA. You keep bragging about power projection but you probably can't even put more than 1500 marines on land if you tried
Pitcairn doesn't provide any advantages, except scientific ones (the marine reserve several times larger than the UK).
Places like Gibraltar, Singapore, Cyprus, Ascension and Bahrain have huge logistical and strategic value. It can hardly be overstated.
>And please don't call yourself a world power. The only world power is the USA.
You're getting "world power" confused with "superpower". There are several countries which have worldwide influence, the UK is just one of them.
I can imagine them trying to mobilize for war only to face hygiene issues worse than those experienced in WWI.
>do brits really believe this
You don't believe in the overriding importance of logistics? That is very strange coming from an American.
It's not just Britain you need to learn about. You don't understand US power, either.
>Cyprus, because it allows the RAF to project air power over all the Middle-East hotspots without needing an aircraft carrier.
your contribution through airstrikes is honestly negligible
also cyprus does not grant you access to all of the middle east.
>The point of the bases is to keep a military force supplied and allow projection of power.
you aren't projecting power. every place you have a base US has 10 more and they are the ones projecting their interests not your bases. look china a real super power that's the current greatest threat to the west and trying to spread its influence in africa and eastern europe. the us has numerous bases in aisa to project power and to protect its allies land claims like the senkaku islands. meanwhile uk only has 2 bases all the way in south east asia.
>There's another big fat lie.
besides the falklands what are protecting exactly? you created isreal and you couldn't even protect them and had to hand over control to the US after the shitshow of the suez crisis.
you are not a world power
I'm enjoying this now!
>your contribution through airstrikes is honestly negligible
Sure, if you only measure bombs dropped and ignore recon and intelligence flights. Would you look at the time? That's right, it's time for another meeting with our friend REALITY:
> the UK has carried out 8% of coalition airstrikes in Iraq; that nearly 60% of the intelligence gathered in Iraq is provided by British Tornado aircraft; and that Reaper and Airseeker aircraft, which have been authorised to fly surveillance missions over Syria since October 2014, are providing up to 30% of the intelligence effort in that country.
60% of intelligence in Iraq, 30% in Syria, of the entire coalition effort... negligible? Well at least you tried, right?
>the us has numerous bases in aisa to project power and to protect its allies land claims like the senkaku islands. meanwhile uk only has 2 bases all the way in south east asia.
>look china a real super power that's the current greatest threat to the west
Ouch, I'm cringing, so many misguided assumptions.
Let's see, first of all US interests are not identical to UK interests. They are often similar but they are not the same. Whereas the US and UK have aligned interests regarding, say, Russia, they disagree on how to interact with other countries, such as China.
The US has numerous bases in Asia because it has more obligations, far more in that region than the UK. Under the Five Powers Defence Agreements (FPDA), the UK has obligations to Singapore and Malaysia. As part of the FPDA, Singapore allows the Royal Navy use of that logistics facility you saw in the map posted above. The combination of HMS Juffair and the facility in Singapore allows Britain to project naval power into that region and keep it there. Having a battalion of Gurkhas on standby in Brunei is also nice.
So France the country with a failing economy and a shit version of the commonwealth is somehow above the UK. Were similar but theyre definitely not above us. Im not even going to bother with the germany meme.
Revised one just to point out the differences
8. Saudi Arabia
The UK is literally just as bad as France.
Germany is undeniably more important.
The UK literally has nothing going for it aside from London and a decent military, and even then London's importance comes directly at the expense of the rest of the country.
>The UK is literally just as bad as France.
Are you sure m8? France has been stagnating whilst our growth has been solid. Were to pull quite a lot in front of them in merely a few years and be nearer to Germany than France in regards to GDP, assuming nothing big happens.
>Germany is undeniably more important.
Germanys economy is not doing the greatest either and the EU is undeniably a failure so far at everything except enacting laws.
I think the Commonwealth literally only exists these days in the form of the Commonwealth Games.
Even then, Australia's probably going to start making serious moves to become a republic within the next 20 years, most other places will too probably.
>Australia becoming a republic means they leave the Commonwealth
>Are you sure m8? France has been stagnating whilst our growth has been solid.
Yeah, cause of a property bubble in the South East. Remember what happened when the last one popped? Right to buy is moronic.
> EU is undeniably a failure so far at everything except enacting laws
Really? Considering it's a trading bloc, legislation is all it really needs to be good at. Plus, it's helped a lot of infrastructure get built.
>i'm """""""" not""""""" English
Really. So if the Commonwealth countries don't even need to have the Queen as it's head of state, what does it even fucking matter? What actually connects these countries to the UK, other than an increasingly distant past?
>Yeah, cause of a property bubble in the South East. Remember what happened when the last one popped? Right to buy is moronic.
So in other words you concede that it currently is and that it only wont be because of a property bubble that can be deflated and currently is?
>right to buy and buy to let
Buy to let is getting crushed and right to buy is in scotland probably will be in england soon. Lets not jump ahead too far m8
>Really? Considering it's a trading bloc, legislation is all it really needs to be good at. Plus, it's helped a lot of infrastructure get built.
But the primary goal is clearly intergration and economic growth and its failed in both regards so far
>What actually connects these countries to the UK, other than an increasingly distant past?
Their past association with Britain usually means they share some sort of institutions with us. It can be language, culture, the Common Law, system of government, or more subtle things.
More important than all of that, Commonwealth membership is optional. Most of these places were part of the British empire and yet they choose to be associated with the UK. The Commonwealth does things like try and improve health/education/government in the poorer places, just by targets and advice, not spending money. The values are of course British values, and the ability to do this kind of thing by attraction rather than coercion is a key part of "soft power"
I knew you were underage and/or mentally challenged. But it was fun anyways.
>A Texan insults my country
I should be mad, but I can't be.
>Highest soft power in the World
>1 of the 3 blue water navies
>Various international political and economic alliances
>High position in various organisations (UN, NATO etc)
>Various bases and territory around the world that allows for it to stage military action from
Try again, Paco.
>Not on the scale that would make you a world power, Rasheed.
EVERYONE knows that real world powers lose:
Only small weak countries like the UK bother to win with their military:
That's not me, it's a different post. See above for how you're totally right. I wish the UK had learnt from the US how to lose with overwhelming military force.
Except it doesn't, at most you just help the US
Look at Syria and Eastern Europe
This meme again
We didn't lost the Vietnam War, the point of it was to show NATO that if Communism started to spread to their country/colony, we do something, even if it was the bare minimum
You do if you want to be a world power.
>So in other words you concede that it currently is and that it only wont be because of a property bubble that can be deflated and currently is?
I'm saying that pointing to Britain's current economic growth as evidence of it's position 20 years from now is foolish, because the current economic growth is illusionary, and will ultimately just come crashing down again.
>clearly intergration and economic growth and its failed in both regards so far
How do you reckon? Because most of Europe is now entirely visa free for most of the rest of Europe, the Euro exists and is widely traded, countries like Romania have seen massive economic growth since joining the EU.
>share some sort of institutions with us. It can be language, culture, the Common Law, system of government, or more subtle things
I really don't understand how any of that is really relevant, in an economic sense. And I really don't understand how any sense other than the economic matters.
>Commonwealth membership is optional. Most of these places were part of the British empire and yet they choose to be associated with the UK.
And as Australia's increasing rejection of the monarchy shows, a new generation simply does not want to remain associated with the UK, or at least doesn't care enough to maintain it.
>The values are of course British values
What even are"British values"? I genuinely don't know.
>h-hehe no, r-really I'm n-not from London
I love when America brings up race against other white countries
Texas is only 45% white, and USA is only 62%. You're responding to a Brit who's 88%
you're not a white country, and Texas is basically part of Mexico. Less than half of your population is white LOL. Can you comprehend what I'm saying you stupid fucking southerner?
>We didn't lost the Vietnam War
My sides can't handle this thread for much longer. Thank god we're almost at bump limit.
>And I really don't understand how any sense other than the economic matters.
In that case you are either genuinely autistic or you're just stupid. Luckily, for you, there's plenty of competition in here.
See this, lads? This is why the UK can't be a World Power.
World Powers DON'T WIN. That is our problem. We keep winning wars, we'll never be a world power at this rate!
>I'm saying that pointing to Britain's current economic growth as evidence of it's position 20 years from now is foolish, because the current economic growth is illusionary, and will ultimately just come crashing down again.
And in the meantime I shall wait for this economy that is supposedly more imaginary than others to come crashing down and for France to be left unscathed. I wont hold my breath
>How do you reckon? Because most of Europe is now entirely visa free for most of the rest of Europe, the Euro exists and is widely traded
The Euro, the currency they had to devalue by a third to try and grow the eurozone, which it failed to do. Having large foreign reserves and trade volumes of your currency is irrelevent when it is deflating
>countries like Romania have seen massive economic growth since joining the EU.
Better crack the champagne open; hard hitting countries such as romania and bulgaria will surely save the eurozone whilst france and italy are failing to grow at all
The whole point was just to calm down weak countries like yours who were afraid that we would abandon them at the first sight of Russian aggression.
Yet Cancucks still swarm the US during the winter, why don't you cucks stay in your white paradise if it's so great?
>The whole point was just to calm down weak countries like yours who were afraid that we would abandon them at the first sight of Russian aggression.
You keep digging don't you?
The irony is that the US government was trying its hardest to bring the UK into the Vietnam War and it couldn't
>And in the meantime I shall wait for this economy that is supposedly more imaginary than others to come crashing down and for France to be left unscathed. I wont hold my breath
Our current economic growth is based on a housing bubble? Are you delusional, or do you just not understand what an economic bubble is?
>The Euro, the currency they had to devalue by a third to try and grow the eurozone, which it failed to do. Having large foreign reserves and trade volumes of your currency is irrelevent when it is deflating
Yet it still exists, even after half a decade of people saying it's going to break down overnight.
Half a continent and dozens of countries under one currency, just take a step back and understand how impressive such a thing even exists.
>Better crack the champagne open; hard hitting countries such as romania and bulgaria will surely save the eurozone whilst france and italy are failing to grow at all
You said the EU failed to create economic growth, I gave you an example of where the EU created economic growth.
Even then, you can't blame the EU for the 2008 financial crash, which is why the more developed countries are having a harder time economically.
>Texans can't handle the cold
doesn't surprise me, you shut down shop and lose the ability to drive when you get a couple centimetres of snow
and besides only darkies come from hot climates
>Perhaps this fact is relevant?
Relevant to what? It's not relevant to my point, you'd know that if you read the post chain.
>To calm down France
Wtf are you on about m8?
You sacrificed the lives of almost 60,000 American soldiers, and 300,000 US troops wounded, to "calm down France"?
>Our current economic growth is based on a housing bubble? Are you delusional, or do you just not understand what an economic bubble is?
Not all economic growth is a bubble and the UKs is no more bubbled than others except in the housing market, where it is actively being deflated. I have made a simple point and yet you fail to understand it.
>Yet it still exists, even after half a decade of people saying it's going to break down overnight.
No one thinks that, it will surely die a slow and painful death.
>Half a continent and dozens of countries under one currency, just take a step back and understand how impressive such a thing even exists.
I think what is more astounding is the failure to keep it inflated or for it to increase growth at all, let alone its current deflationary and recessionary powers. All of this potential at their hands and they fail pathetically.
>You said the EU failed to create economic growth, I gave you an example of where the EU created economic growth.
The EU has grown 10% over over 10 years, thats pathetic for an economy of its sixe. Its clearly holding advanced countries back. Giving examples of countries with pathetically small economies growing is just proving my point further. Greece LITERALLY went from a developed economy to a developing one after losing 19%+ of its GDP in six years. Now THATS impressive
>except in the housing market
Except that it's the housing market that's driving our economic growth.
And just because the government are trying to deflate it, or at least making a show of trying doesn't mean it'll have any real effect. Do you really see prices in London falling without causing a stampede to sell?
>it will surely die a slow and painful death
What doesn't given enough time? Give me a number.
>for it to increase growth at all
Romania. The Baltics. Hell, most of Eastern Europe.
You're just suffering under a western-centric viewpoint, I'd think.
>The EU has grown 10% over over 10 years
So, since just two years before a massive, worldwide financial crash?
>Greece LITERALLY went from a developed economy to a developing one after losing 19%+ of its GDP in six years
And that is literally nothing to do with the EU. Greece's problems are Greece's fault.
If you want to criticise the EU, I'll admit admitting Greece was a mistake, but then that only happened because the Greeks lied about their financial position.
>There weren't many wars during the 19th century either. Whose lapdog were we then?
>why aren't we doing what they want?
We're bombing Syria and agreeing to TTIP, I don't see how we're not doing what they want us to do.
You clearly don't care that I've pointed out the massive flaw in your argument
>We're bombing Syria and agreeing to TTIP, I don't see how we're not doing what they want us to do.
Damn you're stupid.
The Americans asked us to bomb ASSAD you fucking idiot. Britain refused. The Americans asked us not to join the AIIB. Britain ignored them. The Americans refused to release Snowden's leaks. The British government allowed a British paper to release it to the world, after which the others followed. The Americans didn't want us to hold an EU referendum, again, guess what happened.
You are clueless and stupid
>You clearly don't care that I've pointed out the massive flaw in your argument
What, that we used to be important in the 19th century? So what?
But we still bombed some other lads they asked us to.
>Britain ignored them.
And rolled over at the chance to join the other thing they asked us to.
>The British government allowed a British paper to release it to the world, after which the others followed.
Yeah, because it's a well known fact The Guardian is owned directly by the government, and that the British police aren't trying to arrest Assange for extradition to """""""""Sweden""""""""".
>The Americans didn't want us to hold an EU referendum
A lot of people don't, leaving the EU would be idiotic.
Regarding the houses, we shall see what happens. We can go on about houses but for now its just speculation until something happens.
>What doesn't given enough time? Give me a number.
Theres no need to. The path has clearly already been laid so its just a matter of time until it winds down to a less powerful union or completely disbands.
>You're just suffering under a western-centric viewpoint, I'd think.
Im suffering under a euro-centric viewpoint. The economy has barely grown a percent for each year. The biggest non western country in the union has declined by a fifth, and half of the western ones havent grown at all. Ill give them their dues but tiny countries such as estonia, malta and luxembourg growing and economically underdeveloped ones such as romania, bulgaria and poland growing is hardly impressive.
>So, since just two years before a massive, worldwide financial crash?
That other economies have recovered much better from, leaving the EU dead last except from one. Japan hasnt grown at all since the asian crash in the 90s and considering how the EU hasnt grown at all in the past decade we may be facing a similar situation.
>And that is literally nothing to do with the EU. Greece's problems are Greece's fault.
Greece is in the single economy of the EU, Im pretty certain their economic affairs are the EUs. If the EU were ignorant of it then it doesnt absolve them but rather it makes it more concerning.
>What, that we used to be important in the 19th century? So what?
I need to spell it out? Not fighting loads of wars is *not* a sign of weakness, and fighting in coalitions isn't either.
>But we still bombed some other lads they asked us to.
Bombing ISIS in Syria? That was actually in direct response to a request from the French President. Are we France's lapdog now?
>And rolled over at the chance to join the other thing they asked us to.
This is interesting logic. So if we do ANYTHING the USA wants, we are their lapdog. Even if it's in our interest to do it too. But if we refuse to do what the USA wants, that doesn't matter, we are still their lapdog.
By your logic, we are the lapdog of almost every country on Earth. Because we both agree and disagree with the majority of countries about different issues.
> We can go on about houses but for now its just speculation until something happens
It's not a speculation, house prices in the South East are skyrocketing and will crash. This is economic fact. Exponential growth is not possible.
>The path has clearly already been laid
If it's so clear, tell m how long the path is. Because, again, people have been saying that for over half a decade and there's no sign of it yet.
>ones such as romania, bulgaria and poland growing is hardly impressive
True, for somehow who lives in, and only thinks about, Western Europe.
The economic growth of Eastern Europe, given the region's context, is simply fantastic and is undoubtedly helped if not directly caused by the EU.
A lot of these countries were part of the USSR not 30 years ago.
>Japan hasnt grown at all since the asian crash in the 90s and considering how the EU hasnt grown at all in the past decade we may be facing a similar situation
But the EU has grown, 10% by your own admission. I think the position of the EU can easily be explained by a combination of the 2008 crash and the admittance of Greece, and that the idea that the Union is fundamentally flawed or necessarily doomed to failure is incorrect.
>Greece is in the single economy of the EU, Im pretty certain their economic affairs are the EUs
Except the seeds of Greece's economic problems were sown many, many years prior to their admittance to the EU.
>If the EU were ignorant of it then it doesnt absolve them but rather it makes it more concerning
Greece said their economy was far better than it was. The EU had no reason to disbelieve them.
If you want to fault the EU for something, all you can really criticise them for is believing a Greek.
>Not fighting loads of wars is *not* a sign of weakness, and fighting in coalitions isn't either
I never claimed being a lapdog was a sign of weakness. Quite the reverse, being a lapdog often gives the dog quite a degree of power.
The problem is that this power is dependent on a party the dog has no control over.
>Are we France's lapdog now?
In a way. Certainly, we are becoming more and more dependent on them for overseas operations, hence why British officers are training in France, why British forces are now regularly training with French forces.
>So if we do ANYTHING the USA wants, we are their lapdog
But we don't just do "anything", we do a lot of stuff.
And there are many that would argue that TTIP, bombing Syria are not in our interests.