Britain in or out of European Union?

[Hard_Rom]

Most forms of federation have issues. Canadian 'have' provinces, historically Ontario and Quebec, receive equalization transfer payments far below their contribution. While 'have nots' such as Newfoundland/Labrador receive far more. Saskatchewan typically a 'have not' moved up to a 'have' region when oil prices boomed. With the collapse of oil prices Saskatchewan is not back to being a 'have not'.

The tiny province of Prince Edward Island has far more representation in Parliament proportional to it's population than does the city of Toronto.

We constantly bicker over transfer payments and the pros and cons of proportional representation.

But without this Canada may not exist as a country. The 'have nots' in the east are supported by the 'haves' in central Canada. British Colombia is always trying for greater representation as it's economy and Vancouver grow.

We are united though as Canadians. While Ontario may not like shelling out to support welfare and unemployment insurance in Newfoundland/Labrador we realize that is how we stay together. Newfoundland/Labrador always had almost seasonal employment due to fisheries. Then gained oil revenue. Only to lose when cod stocks collapsed.

The same can not be said for Europe. The UK hates to think it is shouldering the load to carry Spain, Italy, Ireland or the eastern European countries.

 

[Rachel_X]

They also Banned expensive roaming charges for your mobile phone and told Microsoft that they could not stop people selling on surplus licences. This means you can move from XP to windows 10 for £19 instead of the £110 that Microsoft charge. It's swings and roundabouts.

In or out, if Britain wants to do tariff-free trade with the EU our contribution will not fall. (see my previous post.

Roaming charges are idiot traps anyway. There is free WiFi almost anywhere in Europe.
Windows 10 cost me nothing, so your £19 looks a little steep to me.

 

[stickygirl]

Completely agree about the way the campaigns are being run. As for the Eurohogs, what makes you think that us coming out will cut our contribution. Both Norwegian and Swiss citizens pay more to the EU than British citizens do, and they both have to be part of the Schengen zone. This is all for the privilege of doing business without tariffs. If the EU won't budge on that for a country that has a surplus of both oil and gas, what makes anyone believe the EU will make an exception for the UK.

Both Norway and Switzerland are cash-rich countries so they also lend more per capita to the IMF, because they have smaller populations: that's banking. Since we're not part of the Schengen and a number of countries (Poland Croatia + ) are looking to introduce border control, that simply doesn't wash.

 

[DeYaKen]

Both Norway and Switzerland are cash-rich countries so they also lend more per capita to the IMF, because they have smaller populations: that's banking. Since we're not part of the Schengen and a number of countries (Poland Croatia + ) are looking to introduce border control, that simply doesn't wash.

In order to do business with the EU they signed up to Schengen. If you don't believe me, fly into Oslo airport and see how you do not have to go through immigration. Drive through the border between France and Switzerland and notice that the barriers have been taken down and there is no longer anyone manning the Border.

You make Switzerland's and Norway's contributions sound like an act of charity. I can assure you they are not, and it has nothing to do with banking. We are not talking about investments, we are talking about paying subscriptions to the EU club. The Swiss are famous for not spending money they don't have to but they still pay more per capita than we do.

The fact remains that in order to do business with the EU both countries have to pay contributions to the EU and their contributions are higher per capita than ours. The difference is that they have no say in how it is run, and they don't have to implement community directives.

There are good reasons for leaving the EU but reducing our expenditure is not one of them, it is only smoke and mirrors. If we don't pay, they put import tariffs on our goods and get the money that way. With import tariffs on British goods, why would companies like Nissan, Honda and BMW want to continue investment in Britain?

 

[oggbashan]

...

The fact remains that in order to do business with the EU both countries have to pay contributions to the EU and their contributions are higher per capita than ours. The difference is that they have no say in how it is run, and they don't have to implement community directives.

There are good reasons for leaving the EU but reducing our expenditure is not one of them, it is only smoke and mirrors. If we don't pay, they put import tariffs on our goods and get the money that way. With import tariffs on British goods, why would companies like Nissan, Honda and BMW want to continue investment in Britain?

Nissan, Honda and BMW are at risk if Britain votes out but they have significant market share in the UK which could be lost if they move factories inside a smaller EU.

Import duties? Maybe. They could be more than balanced by NOT paying French farmers to be inefficient. The Common Agricultural Policy is a mess.

 

[DeYaKen]

Roaming charges are idiot traps anyway. There is free WiFi almost anywhere in Europe.

Spoken like a tourist not a traveller.

Free WiFi, twenty kilometres from the nearest town, I don't think so. There is however, a mobile phone signal even when driving across the Carpathian mountains.

Windows 10 cost me nothing, so your £19 looks a little steep to me.

That is because you went from windows 7 or 8. No free upgrade is available for XP. Microsoft charge £110, look it up on Amazon.

You really must learn to read a post properly before replying to it.

 

[DeYaKen]

Nissan, Honda and BMW are at risk if Britain votes out but they have significant market share in the UK which could be lost if they move factories inside a smaller EU.

Import duties? Maybe. They could be more than balanced by NOT paying French farmers to be inefficient. The Common Agricultural Policy is a mess.

The CAP is beyond reform, it should be scrapped. However, it isn't just French farmers it benefits. Most of the Scotts crofters are totally dependant on it.

These are the sort of discussions we should be having, but from both camps all we are getting is scare stories and promises of benefits which will never come.

 

[oggbashan]

Media reaction in other EU countries

There has been an interesting mix of reaction around Europe to David Cameron's deal and the date of the referendum.

The responses have been as confusing as some of the arguments in the UK media.

A summary of tens of thousands of words:

The concessions to the UK are meaningless. They are words, not deals, and require the consent of all EU countries i.e. the UK got nothing.

Giving the UK those concessions has weakened the whole EU. Now any country can demand their own concessions. The EU is doomed!

The UK's referendum is dangerous for the whole EU. If the UK votes to leave, it will damage the EU and lead to more calls for a referendum in more countries. The EU could break up within a year or so of Britain voting for out.

Don't worry. Our country is safe in the EU. We didn't give David Cameron anything except promises that unfortunately we won't be able to keep, so nothing has changed.


The above is my summary. All I can say from the reactions I have seen is that many other countries are as confused about the arguments for the UK in or out as we are inside the UK.

It is going to be decided on a balance of people's gut feelings, not genuine facts, and many of us are still "Don't Knows".

Personally I'm a Europhile but an EU sceptic. I like the idea of Europe working together in peace. I'm not convinced that the current EU is competent to do it. What I would have liked is a substantial revision to the EU treaty that recognised a two-tier Europe of those inside and outside the EURO zone.

But the revised treaty that was proposed was rejected by two countries, so the EU commission and leaders introduced it anyway by administrative action, calling it something else. That is undemocratic, and stinks.

The UK really wanted the whole EU to reform itself. Concessions to the UK were not the aim, but an EU that was more responsive to business concerns, more competitive in world markets, and recognised that different countries can do things their own way - and that's not a bad thing.

The UK has got some grudging concessions but the real problem, the need for the EU and its institutions to change, has not been affected at all. It is still to be run by the same people in the same way and is heading for chaos - again.

 

[oggbashan]

The CAP is beyond reform, it should be scrapped. However, it isn't just French farmers it benefits. Most of the Scotts crofters are totally dependant on it.

These are the sort of discussions we should be having, but from both camps all we are getting is scare stories and promises of benefits which will never come.

The number of Scots crofters benefitting from the CAP is small. The number of French farmers claiming from the CAP is huge.

Farming throughout the EU is distorted by the CAP, and it works against the poorer countries of the world that could export to Europe but can't cope with the protection systems of the CAP.

 

[Rachel_X]

Spoken like a tourist not a traveller.

Free WiFi, twenty kilometres from the nearest town, I don't think so. There is however, a mobile phone signal even when driving across the Carpathian mountains.


That is because you went from windows 7 or 8. No free upgrade is available for XP. Microsoft charge £110, look it up on Amazon.

You really must learn to read a post properly before replying to it.

I can't get a phone signal in the alps. I can get WiFi.
If you're still on XP at this point, you're a colossal moron.

 

[stickygirl]

Discussions at work cited
That we have major concessions already in the EU, which makes other members grumpy, but they find it easier to gripe at the UK rather seeing bigger problems under their own noses.
If we leave the EU and then later rejoin ( assuming it hasn't imploded ) we won't have the same concessions. In effect we'll have to accept losing a right to leave (again) and accepting the 'ever closer' political union.
Germany owns Greece, so they won that part of the war.
One more terrorist atrocity and kiss goodbye to Schengen
The EU will never implode because the Eurohogs have too much to lose
Turkey can never join whilst it has such appalling HRs

I'm still undecided but wavering towards staying

Is Cameron attacking Boris like two dead sheep savaging each other?

 

[DeYaKen]

I can't get a phone signal in the alps. I can get WiFi.
If you're still on XP at this point, you're a colossal moron.

You can always spot someone who has no argument. They resort to personal abuse when they find themselves exposed.

Re WiFi Are you seriously telling me that twenty kilometres from the nearest town, you get free WiFi?
There have been a number of alpine rescues where the climbers called for help on their 2G mobile phones. No WiFi up there. Like it or not to stay in touch while on the move You need mobile signals. The British Government could have taken on the providers and stopped them ripping you off but they wimped out. Just like they did on the subject of compensating passengers for cancelled flights.

There are a number of companies, including banks and aircraft manufacturers who are still using XP. Some are now moving to seven but will not move to ten.
XP was a sound system which could be made secure. Vista was appalling. Seven was good and could be made secure. Eight is hideous on anything but a tablet. Ten is good but currently insecure and industry is unhappy with the level of built in reporting.

 

[DeYaKen]

I picked this up on facebook today and thought it might add a little to the discussion. Please understand these are not my views. some things I agree with and others I don't, but its worth a read.

“What did the EU ever do for us?

In the week when the UK's five extremist right-wing media billionaires won their battle to waste our time, money and political capital on a EU referendum, I thought it a good time to post the great letter by Simon Sweeney in the Guardian, which he kindly allowed me to reproduce in my book, "The Prostitute State - How Britain's Democracy has Been Bought":

"What did the EU ever do for us?
Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

Simon Sweeney,

Lecturer in international political economy, University of York"

 

[stickygirl]

and that thing with bananas?
- wasn't even true

 

[oggbashan]

Many items on the list duplicated or complicated pre-existing UK or international regulations. EU legislation was either enacting international agreements or just plain bureaucracy.

Some, e.g. the 48 hour working week, restricted workers' rights in the UK, led to enforced UNPAID overtime, and left UK workers worse off because of the EU.

The regulations on vacuum cleaners were made to suit other countries. Dyson complained because the tests were screwed towards German manufacturers of bagged vacuum cleaners which were only tested when empty, unlike Dyson and similar machines that continued to operate at full efficiency until completely full.

German motor manufacturers also skewed testing on diesel emissions (before VW's software fudge) to ensure that diesel cars were not penalised for their dangerous emissions.

A few more:

Restrictions on landfill dumping mean that we all pay far more to dispose of our rubbish. Much of the cost of hiring a skip is caused by EU regulation taxes, and that has led to much more fly-tipping.

Europe wide copyright protection? Existed before the EU was even thought about under the Berne Convention of 1886 and is also covered by World Trade agreements.

Improved animal welfare? Don't make me laugh. Foie Gras anyone? Why do animal rights activists object to the export of livestock? Because the EU rules are a dead letter and not enforced.

There have been benefits from being in the EU, but that list is special pleading.

 

[DeYaKen]

and that thing with bananas?
- wasn't even true

If you are talking about the minimum length etc, for bananas, Yes it was, but not in the way that the British press made out. The rules did not say you couldn't grow short bananas, it said you couldn't export them. This all but destroyed Madeira's banana trade. Instead of being able to sell their produce all over Europe, they could only sell to Portugal.

The same thing was true about the straight cucumbers.

Most of that has now been rescinded, but resurrecting the banana trade is not easy.

 

[DeYaKen]

http://i.imgur.com/aFhWSah.gif

How does it compare to the amount Californians pay to the national government, compared to the financial return?

 

[DeYaKen]

Many items on the list duplicated or complicated pre-existing UK or international regulations. EU legislation was either enacting international agreements or just plain bureaucracy.

The regulations on vacuum cleaners were made to suit other countries. Dyson complained because the tests were screwed towards German manufacturers of bagged vacuum cleaners which were only tested when empty, unlike Dyson and similar machines that continued to operate at full efficiency until completely full.

Dyson do not manufacture vacuum cleaners within the EU. They are made in Malaysia. The only UK manufactured vacuum cleaner is the Henry, made by Numatic in Chard. A bagged cleaner.

A few more:

Restrictions on landfill dumping mean that we all pay far more to dispose of our rubbish. Much of the cost of hiring a skip is caused by EU regulation taxes, and that has led to much more fly-tipping.

Not true. The EU set restrictions on the amount of landfill that took place. The UK government, looking to make more money out of the taxpayer, decided that the best way to do this was by taxing landfill. That was their decision, not a European directive.

Don't get me started on the mis reporting of the cost of European voltage harmonisation.

Because the EU rules are a dead letter and not enforced.

There have been benefits from being in the EU, but that list is special pleading.

Yes it is, I think he was trying to do a Monty Python.

The reason it looks like the Europeans ignore the directives is that they are usually deliberately vague. Each government writes their own version into national law. The Brits have a hatred of vagueness in laws so they define everything to the nth degree. So we end up having to do things that other countries get away with. Just look at Health and safety. European version 22 pages. UK version 250 pages.

 

[oggbashan]

...

The reason it looks like the Europeans ignore the directives is that they are usually deliberately vague. Each government writes their own version into national law. The Brits have a hatred of vagueness in laws so they define everything to the nth degree. So we end up having to do things that other countries get away with. Just look at Health and safety. European version 22 pages. UK version 250 pages.

Your statement quoted could be critical in the debate.

The British Government has tried to implement all (or almost all) EU directives in a comprehensive manner as thet translate those directives into UK law. Other countries have taken their own line about the directives, ignoring some, or if they don't like them implementing them minimally and then not providing any resources to enforce them - so they are ignored.

I can recall two examples:

Smoking inside buildings accessible to the public.
It almost never happens in the UK. In France, small bars, supposedly smoke-free, carried on as if no directives had been issued. Even police officers could be seen smoking inside bars. It took years to change in France, and in some parts still hasn't happened.

Warning notices - steep drop; deep water; etc.
The medieval walls of a small town near Boulogne have very steep drops of over 100 feet with no fences and no notices. The citadel restoration was funded with EU money. As a requirement of that funding, danger notices had to be put up, so the dry moat has fencing and many steep drop signs for the 20 feet drop.

But in the UK, EU regulations are blamed for many nonsenses that are UK produced. People still remember straight bananas and British sausages.

If the referendum produces a clearer understanding of what the EU is responsible for - good and bad - and what it is NOT responsible for, then we might be voting on the reality, not the myths.

My town has benefited from various EU funded schemes. I know that because I was part of the bidding process for several of them. But most locals think they were all funded by the National Lottery.

Some aspects of the EU have been and are good. Some aren't. But the EU gets little credit in the UK for the good things, and is blamed for things that are nothing to do with the EU such as European Court decisions.

 

[oggbashan]

Dyson do not manufacture vacuum cleaners within the EU. They are made in Malaysia. The only UK manufactured vacuum cleaner is the Henry, made by Numatic in Chard. A bagged cleaner.
...

The regulations apply to all vacuum cleaners sold in the EU wherever they are manufactured. Dyson's case is that the EU is against innovation either as a protective measure for the manufacturers inside the EU, or through sheer inertia.

Toys are an example of good EU practice. The CE marking ensures that unsafe toys, wherever made, are not given to children in Europe. Unfortunately forged CE markings are not unknown on toys that would never pass EU tests.

 

[BotanyBoy]

How does it compare to the amount Californians pay to the national government, compared to the financial return?

IDK, looks like we get about 90% of we give back.

 

[oggbashan]

IDK, looks like we get about 90% back for every dollar we give.

And the figure paid to the EU is our NET contribution AFTER deducting all the money we get back from various EU initiatives.

Germany and the UK (in order) pay far more in than we get back. It is worth discussing whether what we pay is worth the benefit across Europe.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And the figure paid to the EU is our NET contribution AFTER deducting all the money we get back from various EU initiatives.

So you are actually giving more?

Germany and the UK (in order) pay far more in than we get back.

Oh I get that.

California is in the same boat.....gotta float all those responsible conservatives in the dirty south.

It is worth discussing whether what we pay is worth the benefit across Europe.

Whellperz....I reckon that's a matter of perspective.

As a whole I'd say Europe is better off for it to the extent the UK in some ways surely benefits. Maybe not as much as if they spent their money on themselves but they still get something for their money.

However from a nationalistic purely UK or Deutsche Bag perspective I'd say over all y'all are getting fucked right up the ass. Dry. 80 grit.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Whellperz....I reckon that's a matter of perspective.

As a whole I'd say Europe is better off for it to the extent the UK in some ways surely benefits.

However from a nationalistic purely UK or Deutsche Bag perspective I'd say y'all are getting fucked hard n' dry.

Some of the 'Out' argument is that IF the EU encouraged innovation and economic competence, our contribution would be worthwhile to improve trade with new members of the EU.

But, they say, the EU doesn't. Its rules and regulations and the EURO zone make it more difficult for developing countries to build their economic potential. We are paying subsidies for continuing incompetence for which Greece is the most obvious example.

The nationalist parties in the UK, France, Germany and other EU countries are campaigning on xenophobia (while denying that they are racist) and blaming foreigners, refugees, and migrants.

Those arguing for IN and those arguing for OUT are coalitions each of which contains wildly varying views on the advantages and disadvantages of the EU.

Getting a reasonably balanced view on which to base a decision how to vote is going to be hard. I suspect there will be a sizeable proportion of the UK's electorate who will say "Fuck It!" and not vote at all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Some of the 'Out' argument is that IF the EU encouraged innovation and economic competence, our contribution would be worthwhile to improve trade with new members of the EU.

But, they say, the EU doesn't. Its rules and regulations and the EURO zone make it more difficult for developing countries to build their economic potential. We are paying subsidies for continuing incompetence for which Greece is the most obvious example.

The nationalist parties in the UK, France, Germany and other EU countries are campaigning on xenophobia (while denying that they are racist) and blaming foreigners, refugees, and migrants.

Sounds more like (D) v (R) than I suspect any European would ever be willing to admit.

Those arguing for IN and those arguing for OUT are coalitions each of which contains wildly varying views on the advantages and disadvantages of the EU.

Getting a reasonably balanced view on which to base a decision how to vote is going to be hard. I suspect there will be a sizeable proportion of the UK's electorate who will say "Fuck It!" and not vote at all.

Yea....but it's time to commit or jump ship.

If UK or Germany bails so will the other, without them the rest of the union has no reason to exist because there's no longer anything in it for them.

Personally I think y'all should bail, tell the rest of them to get a fuckin' job.