At 4/8/10 05:11 PM, GustTheASGuy wrote:
Of course it isn't, it only ever meant some of your money is going to be shared with other countries, and in return you'll get more low-class Latvian immigrants. What did you think?
Well, one issue is with that money thing. Granted, a touch selfish, but considering that the country (much like all others) is economically stuck in a rut and needs to pump as much money as it can into its own services, giving other countries money for what appears to be nothing in return appears rather foolish. The UK Independence Party put this cost at about £6.4 billion annually (although, as this value is from UKIP, I've no idea how close/far it is from the true amount).
But the bigger issues come from British policies being influenced and altered by the European Union. Very strong opinions are cropping up about the EU abusing their power at the cost of the United Kingdom, as well as a number believing that policies determined by the entirety of the EU will not always suit the UK, but will be forced into law regardless. Arguably, the further a society goes from the utopian situation of every individual determining the rules which they live by without infringing on that of others, and so the more individuals are represented by fewer individuals, the worse it becomes. Apologies to anyone who believes in autocracy.
Another issue is with the values of tradition and culture. Britain has absorbed various cultures, and is better because of it. The curry is the most popular dish in England I believe, and I had Chinese food for dinner this evening (it was delicious, thank you for asking). But still, giving up so much culture for, again, seemingly nothing in return seems like a terrible decision, and many draw the line at renaming "The English Channel" as "The Anglo-French Pond".
I like to keep an open mind about these things, so don't assume that I agree with everything I've just said up there.