Britain in or out of European Union?

[DeYaKen]

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

That doesn't really answer my question but never mind.
I have no idea where you got 9.6 billion from but it looks like the figure you get if you take our rebate from our contribution. However, that is not the net figure since it ignores all the grants and farm subsidies paid to Britain. After these are taken into account, our net contribution is more like 4 billion Euros or £3.2 billion. Compared to our overall government spending that is a drop in the ocean.

See information here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036802.stm

 

[stickygirl]

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.

Germany is the EU. I caught a bit of tv news last night and the politicians don't even know which way to vote. How the fuck are the sheep like us supposed to jump?

 

[DeYaKen]

Some financial sanity

Because some of the figures bandied about just didn't add up I went looking for some sanity. I found some information on the BBC's site which was interesting.
The BBC used to be as unbiased as you could get. Not sure now though they seem to be supporting the government more since the charter renewal talks started.

Anyway here it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036802.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

Some revelations. The Greeks pay more per capita than anyone else. The UK pays the least.
After the rebate and all grants and subsidies are taken into account our contribution is £3.2 billion per annum.

Yes, the largest recipient of subsidies is France, but Britain is not far down that league.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That doesn't really answer my question but never mind.
I have no idea where you got 9.6 billion from

Me either I never said anything about 9.6 billion anything.

 

[DeYaKen]

Me either I never said anything about 9.6 billion anything.

I'm very sorry, that was ishtac, not you. Please accept my apologies.

 

[oggbashan]

Because some of the figures bandied about just didn't add up I went looking for some sanity. I found some information on the BBC's site which was interesting.
The BBC used to be as unbiased as you could get. Not sure now though they seem to be supporting the government more since the charter renewal talks started.

Anyway here it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036802.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

Some revelations. The Greeks pay more per capita than anyone else. The UK pays the least.
After the rebate and all grants and subsidies are taken into account our contribution is £3.2 billion per annum.

Yes, the largest recipient of subsidies is France, but Britain is not far down that league.

Those BBC figures are interesting but years out of date. The reality has changed since 2007/9.

That illustrates the problem that UK voters have. Getting unbiased factual information about budgets, costs, contributions, benefits, advantages, disadvantages - is almost impossible.

Just try finding your way around the EU's own information websites - they conceal too much, particularly that the accounts haven't added up for years.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm very sorry, that was ishtac, not you. Please accept my apologies.

Saul Goodman!
http://images.amcnetworks.com/blogs.amctv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/BB-S3-Bob-Odenkirk-325.jpg

Germany is the EU. I caught a bit of tv news last night and the politicians don't even know which way to vote. How the fuck are the sheep like us supposed to jump?

Because they haz the money....

Like I said without the hand outs around why would the rest of them stay?

Sounds like the UK/Germany are pretty much just getting fucked and should not continue to rip their own ass in an attempt to be the biggest douche nozzle progressive fart sniffers possible.

 

[oggbashan]

Small report in The Times (UK) today.

A survey of Dutch voters suggests that 55% want their own referendum on the EU and if they had one, the split between IN and OUT is too close to call.

 

[ishtat]

Because some of the figures bandied about just didn't add up I went looking for some sanity. I found some information on the BBC's site which was interesting.
The BBC used to be as unbiased as you could get. Not sure now though they seem to be supporting the government more since the charter renewal talks started.

Anyway here it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036096.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036802.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start

Some revelations. The Greeks pay more per capita than anyone else. The UK pays the least.
After the rebate and all grants and subsidies are taken into account our contribution is £3.2 billion per annum.

Yes, the largest recipient of subsidies is France, but Britain is not far down that league.

The EU Commissioners haven't produced a set of accounts in more than a decade that any auditor would sign off. The figure of 3.2 billion is total bollocks and typical of EU misinformation. The figure of net 9.6 billion for the UK was the lower of two estimates done by two of the major accounting firms. The EU Commission has denied neither so they are most likely the more accurate.

 

[DeYaKen]

Small report in The Times (UK) today.

A survey of Dutch voters suggests that 55% want their own referendum on the EU and if they had one, the split between IN and OUT is too close to call.

It doesn't surprise me. If you ask anyone if they think their voice should be heard they will always say yes. Several of the mainland European get to have a referendum whenever there is a treaty change, just like Ireland did. It is often close.

The speculation about the possible break up of the union comes from those who want to come out and those who want to stir the pot in order to sell more newspapers or get more advertising revenue. The Germans wouldn't let it go and neither would the French
The Germans would lose a lot of power and the French would lose a lot of cash. Then you have the historical ties between Germany, Austria, Hungary and Romania. I think a lot of the countries using the Euro wish they could walk away from it but I doubt they want to leave the union. Look at the alternative a group of countries all trying to protect their own industries. Back in the 90s Cyprus had a 100% import tariff on electronic goods. That sort of thing would happen all over Europe.

In the end, it might benefit us to vote to pull out because that would start another round of negotiations and make believe bargaining before we are asked to vote again. However, with a definite exit hanging over them we might get real concessions. However, I don't trust our politicians to demand the reforms needed to make it work properly.

 

[Benedict_Arnold]

UK Independence Day 23/6/16

I don't care what the eurotrash quislings say.

We can trade with the rest of the world and europe on our own terms

We can create own own legislation we don't need those bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

We are a member of NATO which has kept the peace in Europe and not the EU. Most countries in it do not spend 2% of GDP and just expect America to deal with it.

We can defend our borders we are an island ffs!... Who can blame the Greeks for this.

[http://www.tfa.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EU-flag-burning-in-Greece.jpg

 

[DeYaKen]

I don't care what the eurotrash quislings say.

That's an interesting use of the term. You actually regard Europe as your enemy?

Quote]
We can trade with the rest of the world and europe on our own terms
[/quote]

The rest of the world? Of course we can, we did it before we can do it again. We might even resurrect our trading relationship with the commonwealth. Europe on our own terms? No chance. Norway pays more per capita than we do into the EU, has signed up to Schengen and has to adhere to EU human rights, yet they still have to pay import tariffs. That is for a country with a net surplus of oil and gas. Oil and gas that the EU desperately needs. We have neither. If by trade you mean import from, you are right. If you mean export to then not so. all our goods will be subject to import tariffs making them more expensive in Europe.

We can create own own legislation we don't need those bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Of course we can, we do it now. Surely you don't believe that 80% of our laws are drafted by the EU. That is simply not true. if it were parliament would only have to sit for a couple of hours a week. The EU commission hands down directives. It is up to each government to draft laws for their own counties which implement that directive. The directives are deliberately vague so that every country has a certain amount of wriggle room.

We are a member of NATO which has kept the peace in Europe and not the EU. Most countries in it do not spend 2% of GDP and just expect America to deal with it.

For a large part of that time some members of the EU, most notably France, were not members of NATO so how did Nato stop them going to war?

We can defend our borders we are an island ffs!...

Of course we can, that twenty two miles of water does a stirling job, and who the hell wants to invade us anyway?

Who can blame the Greeks for this.

[http://www.tfa.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/EU-flag-burning-in-Greece.jpg

Now that is interesting because all the opinion polls show that the vast majority of the Greek people are desperate to stay, not only in the EU but also the Euro. Marvellous the impression you can get from an isolated photograph.
Personally I think they were mad to stay in the Euro, but that was their decision.

 

[Scotsman69]

Here's an interesting, and not improbable scenario...

England votes to leave the EU. Narrowly...

But Scotland votes overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.

(Sorry, I'm not close enough to Welsh and N Irish opinion to know how they are likely to vote...)

So the Scottish vote means that the English, who may vote narrowly to leave, have to remain in the EU.

What happens then?

A question never raised in the English media. The tail sometimes wags the dog.

Thoughts?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Here's an interesting, and not improbable scenario...

England votes to leave the EU. Narrowly...

But Scotland votes overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.

(Sorry, I'm not close enough to Welsh and N Irish opinion to know how they are likely to vote...)

So the Scottish vote means that the English, who may vote narrowly to leave, have to remain in the EU.

What happens then?

A question never raised in the English media. The tail sometimes wags the dog.

Thoughts?

English nationalists will go ape shit! Take a lot of Scots voting to stay. English vote would have to be very close.

It's a UK vote. So if majority of UK says stay then losers will just have to accept the democratic process. And then form an alliance with Scot independence party to see if they can split the union before trying for another kick at the can.

 

[oggbashan]

...

A question never raised in the English media. The tail sometimes wags the dog.

Thoughts?

The alternative is that Scotland votes overwhelming for IN, and the rest of the UK vote for OUT, forcing Scotland to leave the EU against the wishes of its voters.

That is equally possible.

What some people don't realise is that EU funding is disproportionally spent in countries. Regions that have weaker economies and higher unemployment get much more EU money per head of population than areas that are better off.

Scotland, Wales and particularly Northern Ireland have benefitted far more from EU spending than regions in England. London and SE England get much less and have to make a more convincing case to receive any EU money.

Locally we have seen EU money spent on infrastructure and social benefits but most people don't know that it was EU money. We have worked through our twin town networks to get cross-border funding from the EU. When ticking boxes on the application form for funding, adding another country is a great boost to the bid.

 

[DeYaKen]

The alternative is that Scotland votes overwhelming for IN, and the rest of the UK vote for OUT, forcing Scotland to leave the EU against the wishes of its voters.

That is equally possible.

What some people don't realise is that EU funding is disproportionally spent in countries. Regions that have weaker economies and higher unemployment get much more EU money per head of population than areas that are better off.

Scotland, Wales and particularly Northern Ireland have benefitted far more from EU spending than regions in England. London and SE England get much less and have to make a more convincing case to receive any EU money.

Locally we have seen EU money spent on infrastructure and social benefits but most people don't know that it was EU money. We have worked through our twin town networks to get cross-border funding from the EU. When ticking boxes on the application form for funding, adding another country is a great boost to the bid.

Quite right and it has been that way since the mid nineties. Their are pockets of deprivation in the southeast but they find it next to impossible to get funding from the EU social fund.

During the period of post office closures in Britain 36 post codes were exempted from the plan. All of them in Scotland and Wales. It was thought that they needed somewhere to deposit their EU farming subsidy cheques.


Actually this raises another question, will votes be totalled up and recorded by constituency or simply totalled up as a whole nation. I see no benefit in knowing who voted for or against. There are enough divisions in the country as it is.

 

[Anonymaso]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies.

None of the socio-economic ramifications of staying or going terrify me more than the notion of Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith drawing up a human rights act. We'd freefall straight back into the Victorian era. No NHS, no workers rights, no effective unions, no housing or decent living standards, poor education and no social mobility. No wonder Boris is having wet dreams about it.

I couldn't give a fuck what fatcats and shareholders are most concerned about. I know the EU is expensive, complicated and we have a UKIP MEP who doesn't believe in his own job description but I still think the average man/woman in the street would suffer greatly if we left. We kept the pound and it was a wise decision but Europe are always going to be our closest trade allies. Better to have a say in shaping the EU from within than giving up our seat at the table.

 

[ishtat]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies.

None of the socio-economic ramifications of staying or going terrify me more than the notion of Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith drawing up a human rights act. We'd freefall straight back into the Victorian era. No NHS, no workers rights, no effective unions, no housing or decent living standards, poor education and no social mobility. No wonder Boris is having wet dreams about it.

I couldn't give a fuck what fatcats and shareholders are most concerned about. I know the EU is expensive, complicated and we have a UKIP MEP who doesn't believe in his own job description but I still think the average man/woman in the street would suffer greatly if we left. We kept the pound and it was a wise decision but Europe are always going to be our closest trade allies. Better to have a say in shaping the EU from within than giving up our seat at the table.

In Summary you are saying you are terrified of being pulled off the Euro Tit and taking responsibility for your own future.

 

[oggbashan]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies.

It isn't a long thread so far.

Better to have a say in shaping the EU from within than giving up our seat at the table.

Part of the argument for OUT is that we have tried for decades to have a say in shaping the EU from within - and have failed. Even countries voting against a new treaty have been told to vote again. Leaving might force the EU to think about its future more than anything the UK has tried to achieve so far. BUT - our negotiations have led to a discussion within the EU about its future trends. Is that enough? OUT would say no; IN would say 'It's a start in the right direction'. Neither would say this is enough change.

 

[DeYaKen]

It isn't a long thread so far.



Part of the argument for OUT is that we have tried for decades to have a say in shaping the EU from within - and have failed. Even countries voting against a new treaty have been told to vote again. Leaving might force the EU to think about its future more than anything the UK has tried to achieve so far. BUT - our negotiations have led to a discussion within the EU about its future trends. Is that enough? OUT would say no; IN would say 'It's a start in the right direction'. Neither would say this is enough change.

In 1975, I voted to stay in. I bought into the "We'll change it from the Inside," argument. 40 years and 16 countries later, nothing has changed. During that time my one and only vote in the European Commission, the people who make the decisions, has been wielded by the nominee of a party that only secured 32% of the national vote. My countries one vote for sixty five million people can still be cancelled out by the one vote of Luxembourg with their population of half a million.

Will this ever change? No, not unless the EU implodes and has to be rebuilt from scratch. Expecting small countries, who currently wield a disproportionate amount of power, to hand their power to bigger countries is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.

 

[Anonymaso]

In Summary you are saying you are terrified of being pulled off the Euro Tit and taking responsibility for your own future.

In summary I'm saying it may well be the case that the EU teat is preferable to an autonomous Tory one.

 

[DeYaKen]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies.

None of the socio-economic ramifications of staying or going terrify me more than the notion of Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith drawing up a human rights act. We'd freefall straight back into the Victorian era. No NHS, no workers rights, no effective unions, no housing or decent living standards, poor education and no social mobility. No wonder Boris is having wet dreams about it.

I couldn't give a fuck what fatcats and shareholders are most concerned about. I know the EU is expensive, complicated and we have a UKIP MEP who doesn't believe in his own job description but I still think the average man/woman in the street would suffer greatly if we left. We kept the pound and it was a wise decision but Europe are always going to be our closest trade allies. Better to have a say in shaping the EU from within than giving up our seat at the table.

We currently have 18% of the European population, but only 3% of the voting power in the European commission. Do you really think we are going to be able to change anything?

 

[Purifier]

It is the same in the US senate. And still I have not heard Texans, Californians or New Yorkers talking about leaving the Union just because Delaware or Rhode Island have the same amount of votes as them.

I agree that the European Union currently is a pretty fucked up thing. But that's the voters' fault. Instead of voting for people that want to make the EU more democratic and more functional they vote for people that blame everything they do wrong on the EU while at the same time lining their pockets with EU money. That pretty much apply to all EU countries, we are in the same boat there.

If you compare the EU's wealth, population and trade data with that of the US it is pretty obvious who should be the super power and who the junior partner. But unlike the EU member states the US states don't throw a tantrum and threaten to leave when they can't run the show.

I believe that the UK would most likely be able to exist outside the EU without collapsing economically. But it would be the vassal of a USA that sooner or later will be run by a complete right wing nutter (even if Trump doesn't win this time). Do you really think you'd have more of a say in that partnership than in the EU?

With the world being in crisis today as it is, I think that a unified Europe is needed. We either stand together united or become the punching ball of the USA, Russia and China.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I agree that the European Union currently is a pretty fucked up thing. But that's the voters' fault. Instead of voting for people that want to make the EU more democratic and more functional they vote for people that blame everything they do wrong on the EU while at the same time lining their pockets with EU money. That pretty much apply to all EU countries, we are in the same boat there.

LOL sounds more like the US than anything.

With the world being in crisis today as it is, I think that a unified Europe is needed. We either stand together united or become the punching ball of the USA, Russia and China.

Tew late.

 

[DeYaKen]

It is the same in the US senate. And still I have not heard Texans, Californians or New Yorkers talking about leaving the Union just because Delaware or Rhode Island have the same amount of votes as them.

Actually there are mutterings from Texans that some think they would be better off outside the union.

I agree that the European Union currently is a pretty fucked up thing. But that's the voters' fault. Instead of voting for people that want to make the EU more democratic and more functional they vote for people that blame everything they do wrong on the EU while at the same time lining their pockets with EU money. That pretty much apply to all EU countries, we are in the same boat there.

It's not the fault of the voters. The only people they can vote for are the members of the European Parliament. They have no power, They can refuse to sign off the budget but the commission just ignores that. It is a talking shop nothing more, they don't even have the power to elect the president, that again is done by the unelected commission. If you want to compare it to the USA, then it would be like having an unelected president.
Yes, we have plenty of politicians who lie through their teeth about EU laws, the health and safety legislation and the landfill tax are prime examples. None of that changes the fact that our only representative on the commission cannot be removed by the voters.

If you compare the EU's wealth, population and trade data with that of the US it is pretty obvious who should be the super power and who the junior partner. But unlike the EU member states the US states don't throw a tantrum and threaten to leave when they can't run the show.

You are comparing a union that has existed for less than seventy years with one that has existed for more than 250. Of course, they are more unified, but much of that is because the people feel they have power over their own government. In the EU we do not.

I believe that the UK would most likely be able to exist outside the EU without collapsing economically. But it would be the vassal of a USA that sooner or later will be run by a complete right wing nutter (even if Trump doesn't win this time). Do you really think you'd have more of a say in that partnership than in the EU?

So no change there then. The UK has been the lap dog of the USA ever since the second world war, It probably stemmed from the fact that we owed them so much money that we couldn't afford to upset them. Now it's just become a habit. Every new government has to show that they have a "special relationship." The nature of that relationship is that we do as we are told.

The USA wants us to stay in the EU because it gives them an English-speaking gateway into Europe for their goods and services.

With the world being in crisis today as it is, I think that a unified Europe is needed. We either stand together united or become the punching ball of the USA, Russia and China.

Perhaps if the EU was more democratic it might feel that it had the power to act. Just look at the piecemeal reaction to the crises that have arisen. Was there a European response to the genocide in Bosnia? No , they just talked and talked with each commissioner trying to protect their own national interest. Kuwait? Britain and America had to sort it out because the commission couldn't make up their minds in time. The EU is not unified because it is run not by the people of Europe but by a small group who are desperately trying to protect the interests of their own national governments.

If the commission wants a strong Europe they should set a timetable now for handing all their power to the elected parliament.