How would you explain this for Britain/Brexit? Thoughts?

[Libra1509]

I will never understand why people in the UK who support Britain being part of the European Union or even people in countries like Germany or France that are still in the European Union support it. This is because one of the main aspects of the European Union is to enable all its member states to reach a similar level of development and prosperity which is why the rich countries tend to pay more funds to subsidise the poorer countries. The UK for example was the second highest-paying country for the entirety of its membership with the likes of Poland, Ireland etc benefitting from such funds.

And Ireland did benefit because now it has such a high GDP per capita and now it is a net contributor to the EU and it’s really developed too compare compared to what it was in the decades past and Poland has also made massive strides in economic development as have the other countries that have been subsidised by the richer countries.

But, fundamentally, why would a richer country like Britain want other countries to be more developed and more rich? How is Britain to benefit if Ireland or Poland become rich because they will just become competitors and rivals to Britain? Surely, Britain would be so much better if the entire world including China and the United States and Japan and Germany were all poor and undeveloped so Britain could be the most powerful country in the world and the richest country in the world and so Britain could push them all around.

I’m looking at this from a purely realpolitik perspective because I really couldn’t care any less about improving the lives of people in poorer countries or rivals (since the entire world is Britain’s rival) by giving them subsidies or financial aid because it’s all about making Britain the most powerful and the best and fundamentally that’s what all nations try to do so I just want to understand how Britain benefits from having funded all of those EU countries for decades or how Britain benefits from Ireland becoming rich instead of being poor so that Britain can exploit it and push it around for Britain’s national interest or how Britain benefit from Poland getting richer or Germany recovering from World War II etc.

I mean, this might sound extreme but literally if Russia nuked Germany and the rest of NATO did not get involved and Germany was destroyed that would mean that Britain would become the richest country in Europe as Germany would no longer exist which would be great for Britain. Like if you detach yourself from the emotional notion of the destruction of Germany, the fact of Britain being so powerful would be great. I just don’t understand the downside and why people are so unwilling to have a really coldhearted view about this and why people are not able to explain how Britain benefits from the rest of the world catching up instead of keeping the entire world or as much of the world as impoverished and as backwards as possible

Interesting first post, OP.

I’d rejig it a bit for the effect you want. No one is this stupid.

New markets for export. Stability benefits everyone.
Makes the EU more powerful as a cohesive whole.

You sound nice though, not caring less about other people. You have an Isolationist and primitive perspective.

Being the best and most powerful economically depends on being able to trade and invest and get returns. If all countries in EU were not stable and thriving both economically and socially with good standards of living then it would cause problems.

Politically, we need to be united. Did you learn about WWII at all at school? Allies etc.

So many are this stupid. And they walk among us.

Surely this cannot be real?

Well, yes, but I’m not buying the faux-naïveté of this.

Just think about it.

The reason Britain was the most powerful country in the 19th Century was because we had a head start of the Industrial Revolution. Then the entire world copied us so we lost that advantage.

If we still had that advantage or some other technological advantage like maybe being the only country with nuclear weapons or having some other industrial advantage then we could become richer and more powerful than every other country. Otherwise, we are at a permanent disadvantage since we gave up all our conquered lands like Canada and Australia that provided such natural resources while the USA retained their stolen native land as did Russia and China.

This is precisely why Britain cannot bully other countries to get our way anymore. We could even bully Russia, China and the USA in the 19th Century for our own benefit - which is exactly what they do before you criticise me for mentioning it.

Britain being powerful is beneficial to Britain so keeping the world down and maximising Britain’s relative power is surely in its interest?

Britain cannot be the best and most powerful even if there is great stability because other countries have natural advantages like a much larger population or more natural resources. Just think, Indonesia will soon surpass Britain economically due to its larger size; the only reason it hasn’t yet is because it is less developed. If Indonesia was kept down, that would be one less rival. Same applies to Brazil; in the past to India and China and Germany etc.

Just ignore Cornwall, the Highlands, West Wales, Welsh Valleys and Yorkshire (and more) which received huge amounts of EU strucutral support funding as they were some of the poorest places in Europe. They still are, but all that money is gone and hasn't been replaced.

Fuck me this is next level crazy! The ignorance and wilful manipulation is wild 😜

Kept down? Fewer rivals? This is a ChatGPT creafed post of cobblers. You don’t understand the benefits of trade with countries who are economically thriving. See ya.

I like the EU enough to rejoin myself and my family so we have just left UK. Very happy we did and now all our high-rate tax is paid there instead. I’m happy to contribute to the whole EU and all the countries in it.

Did the funding not help them? Lift them?

wonder what it’s like there now.

You are incorrect that the aim is to keep everyone at the same level of prosperity. It's entirely accepted and not expected to change that there will be richer and poorer members. But just like how with individuals, income tax is higher for the rich and lower for the poor, richer countries obviously pay in more. And just like with individuals, when there's good reason for targeted support (eg grants to improve home insulation which is beneficial on the macro scale because if vulnerable people are in well-insulated homes they are less expensive for the NHS to look after) so in the EU there are targeted grants which sometimes do more for the poorer countries where the need is most. However, the benefits the UK got out of being in the EU was always in excess of the amount paid in.

Bit the main point of being in the EU is because multi-country agreements like this are vital for improving everyone's standard of living. If one country alone passes legislation to limit the use of environmentally damaging chemicals, reduce harmful gas emissions and place limits on the amount of hours it is reasonable to demand of a worker, and minimum wages for that work, then costs of production within that country will obviously go up. If none of the neighbouring countries have the same laws, all these beneficial rules woukd do is collapse demand for locally produced goods and boost imports of goods from countries without these rules. By grouping together and negotiating the same rules for a large block of countries that trade with each other, beneficial rules that improve overall quality of life can work so much better.

The pro-Brexit position was ultimately driven by the people whose ability to exploit the poor, profit from environmental destruction, and hide their wealth from scrutiny and taxation, was hindered by the powerful rules that the EU used to bring prosperity to the general population. As those people handily controlled much of the media, it was easy for them to put about enough propaganda to swing the vote their way.

Ok I’ll bite…
Your argument to impoverish rivals to maximise relative power overlooks how modern global economics operates as a positive-sum system, where mutual development creates expanding opportunities for all, including Britain. Keeping the world "down" isn’t just ethically bankrupt,it backfires economically and strategically.
Britain (and rich nations generally) benefit from subsidising and trading with rising powers, rather than wishing for their downfall.

At the heart of your argument is the idea that if Ireland or Poland gets richer, they become direct competitors siphoning away Britain's edge much like how the world "copied" the Industrial Revolution, eroding Britain's dominance. But economics isn't a fixed pie; it's a bakery that grows larger through specialisation and exchange. Ricardo's economic theory of comparative advantage explains why- even if one country is better at producing everything (an "absolute advantage"), nations still benefit by focusing on what they're relatively best at and trading for the rest. This allows everyone to consume more than they could alone.

For example Britain excels in high value services like finance and tech, while Poland may specialise in manufacturing or agriculture. As Poland develops via EU funds, it buys more British services (such as banking or software) and provides cheaper inputs for UK firms boosting overall efficiency. Global development amplifies this, richer trading partners mean bigger markets for British exports, not just rivals. Post-WWII data shows that as Europe and Asia industrialised, global trade volumes exploded, lifting UK GDP growth rates and trade accounted for about 60% of UK GDP in the EU era, far outpacing isolationist situations m. Keeping countries poor doesn't preserve advantages; it shrinks the global economy, reducing demand for British goods and trapping everyone in low-growth stagnation.

Your 19th-century example actually supports this: Britain's empire thrived not from hoarding tech secrets but from open trade networks that funneled raw materials and markets back home. The Industrial Revolution's "head start" was sustained by exporting machinery and imports, not by nuking competitors.

I’ll grant you that the UK was a net contributor to the EU budget (second only to Germany), paying £13 billion net annually pre-Brexit to fund cohesion policies for poorer members like Poland and Ireland. But this wasn't charity it was an investment yielding massive returns in trade, investment, and stability. EU membership boosted UK-EU trade by 20-30% through frictionless access to the single market, adding in excess of 100 billion to the annual GDP via lower barriers and supply chains. UK firms like Unilever or AstraZeneca relied on EU-wide operations; subsidies to Eastern Europe built infrastructure such as roads and ports, that facilitated these flows, creating jobs and profits back home.

Post-Brexit evidence underscores the loss. In 2025 UK-EU goods trade has fallen 15-20% due to customs checks and tariffs which is costing £20-40 billion yearly in lost output. Services trade (a UK strength) dropped 10%, as red tape hit financial exports. Far from "pushing around" poor neighbors, the EU amplified Britain's soft power, its contributions bought influence in policy (e.g on tech regs) and secured a stable bloc against external threats like Russia. If the goal is realpolitik power, isolation weakens leverage and interdependence builds alliances.

Irelands transformation via EU funds wasn't a zero-sum theft. Irish growth supercharged UK exports and pre-Brexit, the UK supplied 15-20% of Ireland's imports (£20 billion+ yearly), from machinery to pharma ingredients, while Irish multinationals (like Google or Apple hubs) invested £50 billion in UK assets. This created 100,000+ UK jobs in supply chains. Brexit frictions have since slashed bilateral trade by 10-15% with Irish GDP growth dipping 0.2-0.5% from UK slowdowns proving the ties run both ways. A poor Ireland wouldn't be a weak rival to "exploit" it'd be a drag, with cross-border instability ( Northern Ireland tensions) costing Britain billions in security and lost tourism.

Poland's story is similar. EU cohesion funds built highways and factories, turning it into a manufacturing hub that sources £5-10 billion yearly in UK tech and services. British firms like BP and HSBC expanded there, repatriating profits, while Polish workers filled UK labour gaps (pre-Brexit migration added £4 billion to UK tax revenues). These investments yielded 1.5-2x returns EU-wide, including for donors like the UK through export booms.

From a purely self-interested perspective, rich nations back development because it secures markets, stability, and security far outweighing short-term payouts.

Your disturbing coldhearted view assumes power is static and extractive but evidence shows it's dynamic and collaborative. Britain thrived in the EU not despite subsidising others, but because it built a richer, safer web of partners gains that Brexit is now eroding.

True realpolitik today shpuld mean lifting the world to climb higher together, not dragging it down to feel taller in the ruins.

But, fundamentally, why would a richer country like Britain want other countries to be more developed and more rich?

So they can buy our goods and services (especially financial services), so we also become more rich? And so that we can buy things we want from them? And that they can increase our labour market flexibility, provide a seamless trading zone where we can rely on all sorts of things from trading and safety standards to contracts to logistics. Plus the advantage of seamless travel, increased political security and defence, no wars, shared cultural, political and religious heritage, and general fraternity, friendship and collaboration in everything from scientific research to space travel and defence.

I don’t quite get why anyone, OP, wants us all to revert to a seventeenth century idea of hundreds of little nation states all bristling at each other, busily competing for trade routes and going to war with each other every so often. It’s a bizarre fantasy that simply doesn’t work in the modern world.

What is this bilge?

The answer = Trade via common wealth + a little bit of humanity.

"I really couldn’t care any less about improving the lives of people in poorer countries" Deary me, what a cunt.

Surely if everyone is better off that doesn’t mean you are automatically worse off ?

even if you are - surely it’s ok to be a little worse off for a time to help others become better off and catch you up?

when society is equal and well off crime falls, health improves and those don’t stick to country borders - crime in particular crosses borders looking for money

bring back the 60s - peace and love to all

I can't quite work out if the OP is taking the piss?

OP, if you're serious, please go and educate yourself a bit before posting mindless drivel.

If this is supposed to be a joke? Maybe find something better to do with your time?

It’s like the Biff Tannen Knuckle-Dragging School of Political Economy.

😂