European Union [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 14:16

Experience shows that politicians facing a slump in their popularity try to earn points by diverting the attention of voters to the foreign policy issues. With human nature being what it is, the "us vs them" campaigns appeal to basic instincts and help rally people around emotional messages. That almost guarantees an increase in approval ratings. I am sure if Cameron had the economy on his side, he would treat the EU membership question differently. He would either boast his skills in negotiating tough issues with Brussels successfully or not raise the question at all.

The remarkable — given the supposed professionalism of modern-day politics — thing is that, in this instance, the fall in the government's popularity has nothing to do with the EU at all. No party has ever won a UK general election on an expressly anti-EU platform. When the Conservatives have attempted to, as with William Hague in 2001 and Michael Howard in 2005, they lost miserably. For all the noise about Europe, it simply isn't a big electoral issue. Yet still politicians, pundits and strategists who ought by now to know better attempt to suggest otherwise, when to do so flies in the face of all evidence.

The only reason Cameron is lurching to the right on this matter is because he wishes to be seen to placate the right of his increasingly fractious party, which seems to be especially concerned about Cameron's support for gay marriage (those on the right simultaneously claiming it's not a big enough issue to merit consideration, and making a big issue of it), and which is worried about the apparent rise in support for the UK Independence Party. The latter's importance is almost becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy — or it would be, if it had the slightest chance of being fulfilled. The fact is that the swings towards UKIP candidates at the next general election would have to be unprecedently enormous for them to win even one seat. It's not going to happen. UKIP might become the largest British party in the next Euro elections, but in the wider scheme of things this is of little consequence.

Successive elections have shown that there is nothing to be gained for the Conservatives by lurching rightwards, yet still a significant section of the Conservative parliamentary party believes this is exactly what the party should do. If Cameron wants to commit electoral suicide by pandering to their wishes, it's fine by me, but I rather believed he had more sense. Then I recalled that he is, in essence, a weak PM — he didn't win the election, he doesn't command the support of a significant (but more vocal than truly representative, and certainly not election-winning) section of his party, and he is in coalition with a party that has come by many to be despised.

BleAivano

23rd January 2013, 14:22

Mark

23rd January 2013, 14:22

The most interesting aspect is now what Labour and Ed Milliband choose to do. The Tories have laid down a very clear agenda, Labour would be wise to make things equally as clear; none of the usual "we'll wait and see" flim flam.

As for your main point, you're right, time and again it's been shown that the British public want a centerist party, hence why Labour moved to the right and the Tories moved to the left, to almost meet in the middle!

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 14:33

The most interesting aspect is now what Labour and Ed Milliband choose to do. The Tories have laid down a very clear agenda, Labour would be wise to make things equally as clear; none of the usual "we'll wait and see" flim flam.

He was very clear today in saying that he doesn't think there should be a referendum. Some have said this is the wrong tactic; that it will come back to haunt him. I don't agree. At least he's made his position plain. And given the fact that the issue isn't suddenly going to become a huge one at the next general election, the consequences of seeking to deny the public an EU referendum won't be that severe.

That said, Miliband — while finding his feet — is so inherently weak as well that I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his tune under pressure. It still wouldn't really matter, though.

23rd January 2013, 14:59

I think Labour have ruled out a referendum?

Unless the state of the economy improves significantly between now and 2015 I think this is pretty much the only way that Cameron might stay in at the next election, so this is probably more about him and his party retaining power than what is right for the country.

It's a big gamble, will certainly make politics over the next few years a bit more interesting.

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 15:04

Unless the state of the economy improves significantly between now and 2015 I think this is pretty much the only way that Cameron might stay in at the next election, so this is probably more about him and his party retaining power than what is right for the country.

But it won't, because, as I said, Europe has never been a big issue at general elections in the modern era, there's no reason why this should change now despite the alleged rise of UKIP (who aren't going to win any Parliamentary seats anyway), and all the recent evidence points towards right-wing lurches by the Tories proving extremely unpopular at the ballot box.

Knock-on

23rd January 2013, 15:25

the UK would itself a favour by leaving the EU. I wish Sweden would leave to.
IMO EU have come to much of a European "USA wannabe" with a touch of DDR.

EU have become too big and there is way to many corrupted politicians in Brussels that are paid with our tax-money.
Sure its good that its easier to travel and work in another country but do we need the EU/EMU for that?

Imo EU/EMU is a project by politicians for politicians. Too many politicians that results in a lot of stupidities.
Such as theEnforcement directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Directive), ACTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement), Telecom package (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecoms_Package). The Lisbon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty).RFID chips on letters (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1046722/eu-rfid-chips-postal-services).
Then there was a statement from rumpnissen himself van Rumpuy that he wanted to forbid negative talks about the Euro.

Remember how the Irish people voted against the Lisbon treaty again and again until the
results was according to what the EU to boys wanted.

Good points.

The EU is a political land-grab that could have been devised by Sir Humphry Appleby out of Yes Minister. It makes the Civil Service look like amatures.

Saying that, there is a need for a common European policy that allows member nations to maintain Soverienty but trade freely. You do not need a European Government or Court. You do not need open immigration and subsidies. You just need a agreement between the European Countries that want to trade in a mutually beneficial basis. A sort of 'common market'????

Rudy Tamasz

23rd January 2013, 15:32

You do not need a European Government or Court. You do not need open immigration and subsidies.

You don't but quite a few people in the offices of Brussels do.

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 15:35

You do not need open immigration and subsidies.

I believe people should be free to move between countries as they wish.

Knock-on

23rd January 2013, 16:09

I believe people should be free to move between countries as they wish.

People are entitled to anyway. A common agreement could cover working between countries and if people settle in a Country and want to apply for citizenship then they can but that is different to open immigration which IMHO has been a disaster and caused great resentment.

What we now need is a frank and open discussion about all these issues so we can all fully understand what the implications of staying in the EU will be, what a renegiotiated treaty can look like or what would happen if we left. No scare stories and no name slinging. Just the truth. (Talking generally, not to you specifically fella)

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 16:18

People are entitled to anyway. A common agreement could cover working between countries and if people settle in a Country and want to apply for citizenship then they can but that is different to open immigration which IMHO has been a disaster and caused great resentment.

How is it different, precisely? And resentment is no basis on which to make policy. Just because a lot, or a vocal minority, of people might think something doesn't make it right.

What we now need is a frank and open discussion about all these issues so we can all fully understand what the implications of staying in the EU will be

And how would this 'frank and open discussion' work, exactly? Such terms get thrown around with no thought as to what they mean. In the newspapers? On radio phone-ins? On internet forums?

Wasted Talent

23rd January 2013, 16:41

Starter

23rd January 2013, 16:50

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 16:50

The only problem with the Cameron approach is the delay before the referendum is offered.

Why? There is no urgency attached to the issue, which isn't one to which most people attach a great deal of importance, as evidenced — as I keep saying — by successive general elections. The only reason it's come up now is because the Tories are panicking about UKIP's rise in the polls, which is largely meaningless, and UKIP gets given a hell of a lot of airtime by the BBC in particular, which is largely unjustified. All of this activity is completely counter-intuitive. If the Tories swing rightwards, they will lose the next election, and there will be no referendum. Were the referendum to be promised for next week, the rightwards shift this would represent, to say nothing of the splits it would highlight, would still cause the Tories to lose the next election. The clear preference today is for parties of the centre. Forget UKIP — at general elections, they will never amount to anything.

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 16:51

Mark

23rd January 2013, 16:54

The clear preference today is for parties of the centre. Forget UKIP — at general elections, they will never amount to anything.

As will any single issue party when a mainstream party adopts their policies.

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 16:55

As will any single issue party when a mainstream party adopts their policies.

Policies which will also cause any mainstream party to lose, and lose badly. Not just my opinion — that of the electorate, as demonstrated in 2001 and 2005.

Starter

23rd January 2013, 16:56

Yes, because isolationism serves countries really well, doesn't it?
Being aware of world events but choosing not to insert oneself into internal affairs is not isolationism - but you knew that of course.

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 17:11

Being aware of world events but choosing not to insert oneself into internal affairs is not isolationism - but you knew that of course.

'Being aware of world events'? To what end, precisely? One can be deeply isolationist and still be aware of world events.

Wasted Talent

23rd January 2013, 18:30

Why? There is no urgency attached to the issue, which isn't one to which most people attach a great deal of importance, as evidenced — as I keep saying — by successive general elections. The only reason it's come up now is because the Tories are panicking about UKIP's rise in the polls, which is largely meaningless, and UKIP gets given a hell of a lot of airtime by the BBC in particular, which is largely unjustified. All of this activity is completely counter-intuitive. If the Tories swing rightwards, they will lose the next election, and there will be no referendum. Were the referendum to be promised for next week, the rightwards shift this would represent, to say nothing of the splits it would highlight, would still cause the Tories to lose the next election. The clear preference today is for parties of the centre. Forget UKIP — at general elections, they will never amount to anything.

Why? Because there will be a long period of uncertainty and political point scoring so that by the time the referendum comes around the original issue will have been kicked around like a political football for 4 years.

I am not suggesting isolation but do not want major descisions about the way things happen in this country being decided by second rate politicians and career-long bureaucrats in other countries, in the same way that I wouldn't wish to tell other people how to run their affairs.

Free trade and certain common standards and easier travel than the old borders but that would be it. If other Europeans want to have the Euro and Greeks want to be ruled from Berlin and Brussels that is up to them. I do not want a European Commissioner from, for example Bulgaria, deciding how many hours our doctors should work, what shape our bananas should be and what colour cigarette packets should be....

WT

Wasted Talent

23rd January 2013, 18:36

You should definitely leave the EU. The gains from being a member are far outweighed by the losses. Like your tax money being spent on non-performers. I'm surprised it's taken this long for such a proposal, from a leading seated politician, to come forth.

Disclaimer: I in no way care what you all work out on this, it's your piece of cheese. But, since all the east of the Atlantic folks felt obliged to comment on American politics back in the fall Presidential race, it only seems fair that I comment on things that are none of my business over there. :D :p

Well Obama seems to quite happy pushing the UK into deeper European integration.

I'm pretty sure that the USA would happily join a federation with Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras etc and have some "General President Admiral Commissioner" from Costa Rica deciding US immigration, crime and social policies etc etc.

I like your disclaimer - the BBC loves Obama, we are even getting a special programme for his inauguration....I doubt we would have seen any of that if Romney had won

WT

Wasted Talent

23rd January 2013, 18:37

'Being aware of world events'? To what end, precisely? One can be deeply isolationist and still be aware of world events.

Of course.....

WT

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 19:02

I like your disclaimer - the BBC loves Obama, we are even getting a special programme for his inauguration....I doubt we would have seen any of that if Romney had won

The same allegedly left-wing BBC that constantly has Nigel Farage on, that provides Jeremy Clarkson with a home...

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 19:13

Why? Because there will be a long period of uncertainty and political point scoring so that by the time the referendum comes around the original issue will have been kicked around like a political football for 4 years.

I am not suggesting isolation but do not want major descisions about the way things happen in this country being decided by second rate politicians and career-long bureaucrats in other countries, in the same way that I wouldn't wish to tell other people how to run their affairs.

Free trade and certain common standards and easier travel than the old borders but that would be it. If other Europeans want to have the Euro and Greeks want to be ruled from Berlin and Brussels that is up to them. I do not want a European Commissioner from, for example Bulgaria, deciding how many hours our doctors should work, what shape our bananas should be and what colour cigarette packets should be....

WT

In bringing up the shape of bananas, you rather do down the seriousness of your arguments. I thought everybody knew those stories, and many others, were all nonsense?

Incidentally, I have never met any mainland European who actively wants to be 'ruled from Brussels'. There's this absurd feeling that somehow us Brits are the only ones standing up for individual national interest. It's not true. That attitude smacks of little beyond an insular, xenophobic mentality. I object to the corruption that has appeared to be endemic in certain European institutions; I also question, amongst other things, the value of the sheer extent of European bureaucracy as it's manifested in those institutions (the extent to which it impacts negatively on my own life is miniscule). However, it is possible to hold these views and simultaneously be pro-European, and I'm exactly that. Furthermore, there is unquestionably a deeply isolationist attitude in much of the anti-Europe camp. I instinctively react against this.

And the only reason Cameron is doing this now is because he's scared, ridiculously, of UKIP. He should simply ignore them, so little of a genuine electoral threat do they represent.

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:34

BBC News - David Cameron promises in/out referendum on EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282)

So we have Cameron saying there's going to be a referendum on leaving the EU in 2018 - if he wins the election in 2015. So we'll have uncertainty over that for the next 5 years - or maybe 3 years - uncertainly over how long the uncertainty will last.

But we don't even know at this point if we leave the EU if Scotland is coming out with us as they may yet vote to leave the UK, but join the EU. The UK could end up with two land borders to EU countries while still remaining outside of the EU.

What a mess.

He's playing the nationalist card, a dangerous one.
But hey, maybe UK will finally reach it's end station and become a state of the USA, like Alaska and maybe Israel.

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:35

You all boyz are messed up, but I apreciate your candor. I've come to the conclusion that ............never mind, Viva la difference

Vive...

PS: I was a bit pedantic! ;)

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:41

the UK would itself a favour by leaving the EU. I wish Sweden would leave to.
IMO EU have come to much of a European "USA wannabe" with a touch of DDR.

EU have become too big and there is way to many corrupted politicians in Brussels that are paid with our tax-money.
Sure its good that its easier to travel and work in another country but do we need the EU/EMU for that?

Imo EU/EMU is a project by politicians for politicians. Too many politicians that results in a lot of stupidities.
Such as theEnforcement directive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_Directive), ACTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement), Telecom package (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecoms_Package). The Lisbon treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty).RFID chips on letters (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1046722/eu-rfid-chips-postal-services).
Then there was a statement from rumpnissen himself van Rumpuy that he wanted to forbid negative talks about the Euro.

Remember how the Irish people voted against the Lisbon treaty again and again until the
results was according to what the EU to boys wanted.

There is no way EU countries other then Germany, France and UK would survive in today's world on their own.
Just think about it, a bunch of EU countries would have went bankrupt in the last 5 years if it wasn't for the EU.
You're underestimating how much of a difference the common European market makes, especially such a big one.

Starter

23rd January 2013, 19:42

He's playing the nationalist card, a dangerous one.
But hey, maybe UK will finally reach it's end station and become a state of the USA, like Alaska and maybe Israel.
Nah, we might let them become a territory, but not a state. That's because we don't have royalty here - just robber barons, politicians and religious bigots.

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:45

Britain never voted for the European Union.

We had referendums regarding the Common Market, but the whole social etc aspects of the EU were introduced with no public mandate.

The only problem with the Cameron approach is the delay before the referendum is offered.

I think that there will be many people in the EU who take a similar view to BleAivano and will be hoping that the UK initiates an opportunity for other countries to review their position.

If I wanted my life to be run by van Rompuy, Barroso, Hollande and Monti etc I would change my name to "Talent Gaspillé" and post on forum-rallye...

WT

You mean you wanted just the common market to sell your products and become richer, however you are against having to also contribute something towards the community that gives you money?
How nice of you, a true imperialist you are.

BTW, you run your life not Barosso or Rompuy, and if it has to be that someone is influencing your life then the politicians you have elected are doing it first of all, not Barosso nor Van Rompuy.

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:47

Nah, we might let them become a territory, but not a state. That's because we don't have royalty here - just robber barons, politicians and religious bigots.

One more would make no difference. ;)

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:50

Yes, because isolationism serves countries really well, doesn't it?

Isn't the US a nice example?

ioan

23rd January 2013, 19:51

Well Obama seems to quite happy pushing the UK into deeper European integration.

I'm pretty sure that the USA would happily join a federation with Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras etc and have some "General President Admiral Commissioner" from Costa Rica deciding US immigration, crime and social policies etc etc.

I like your disclaimer - the BBC loves Obama, we are even getting a special programme for his inauguration....I doubt we would have seen any of that if Romney had won

WT

Absolute rubbish.

donKey jote

23rd January 2013, 20:09

I think that there will be many people in the EU who take a similar view to BleAivano and will be hoping that the UK initiates an opportunity for other countries to review their position.

I think there are just as many people in the EU who would be glad to see the end of the UK's trojan whinging, stalling and cherry-picking stance.
Blame it all on Brussels, it's easier than blaming yourself or your local rompeys.

Either stay in and be constructive, or get out and play your own fiddle :)

ioan

23rd January 2013, 20:18

I think there are just as many people in the EU who would be glad to see the end of the UK's trojan whinging, stalling and cherry-picking stance.
Blame it all on Brussels, it's easier than blaming yourself or your local rompeys.

Either stay in and be constructive, or get out and play your own fiddle :)

^ what he said.

donKey jote

23rd January 2013, 20:19

I do not want a European Commissioner from, for example Bulgaria, deciding how many hours our doctors should work,
WT
Your doctors? Do you mean only the British ones, or all the doctors in the UK ;) :p
The European Commissioner from Bulgaria wouldn't decide anything. It would be your Government that would.
Blame anything you don't like on them foreigners in Brussels though...

Rollo

23rd January 2013, 22:43

Cameron is only playing this card because it obfuscates the fact that his party like Labor before it, has no idea of how to run the country.

Basically, thanks to government policies dating back to before he was born and when I were a wee lad, British Industry shot itself in the head, didn't modernise, was ruled by the unions, then had the unions and the rest of it kicked to pieces and then no-one could be bothered to invest in public infrastructure or education anymore.

This is akin to the "flag debate" in Australian politics or the moral maze of American politics. Politicians who aren't fit to run a bagel stand, want to be re-elected. Diverting attention form the fact that they're doing such a crap job by any means necessary, is a pretty standard sort of MO.

J4MIE

23rd January 2013, 23:03

I am a bit worried by all this. Like BDunnell I am a pro-European, but as already proven above I can see the UK electorate falling for all of the scaremongering tactics by eurosceptics and result in us leaving the EU.

Of course, if Scotland votes for independence then it could get rid of a lot of non-conservative voters for David Cameron at the next election.....

BleAivano

23rd January 2013, 23:05

There is no way EU countries other then Germany, France and UK would survive in today's world on their own.
Just think about it, a bunch of EU countries would have went bankrupt in the last 5 years if it wasn't for the EU.
You're underestimating how much of a difference the common European market makes, especially such a big one.

Why are the PIIGS countries having problem in the first place? Its because the EU/EMU and BECAUSE of the EURO.
All EMU member countries have to have the same financial politics. But what's good for Germany isn't necessarily
good for Spain or Greece. Is it a coincident that the problem have arisen since the Euro was launched?

If each country would have stuck to their native currency they could have adjusted the currency
up or down depending if its good or bad times. Especially a country like Greece which relies allot on tourism.
With the the Euro and the EMU financial politics

What common market? You mean when Continental tires got EU funds for closing the tire factory in Gislaved to move it to Portugal?
Or how my tax-money are poured over the people who can't be bothered to work after they have turned 50?

Take a look at this PDF that shows which countries that are net recipients / netto contributors.
Look extra carefully at the columns for Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000273546.pdf

The organization is to big, to bureaucratic and to corrupted. The EU/EMU is a like cancer that have to go.
Replace it with a smaller loosely assembled trade/work agreement.

You could also ask about the decisions that are made in Brussels. If the are decisions that needs to be take
that has conflict of interest between two or more member states. To who's benefit do you suppose the decisions will be made?
To a country like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Estonia? Or to countries like Germany, Belgium, France?

Why should decisions that is a matter for Sweden only be taken in Brussels? (Volvo trucks attempt to merge with Scania).
Volvo wanted to merge with Scania but the EU said no and Scania was bought by German V.A.G group.
EU considered that Volvo/Scania would be to dominant on the Swedish market. So its none of EU's *"#¤&@$ business.
A conflict of interest like mentioned before and the decision was taken in German favour.

The so called "inner market", to who's benefit? Sweden's? Hardly likely. France, Germany? Yes quite certainly.
EU is doing the best it can to try and ban snus. But i see no attempts on banning German and French cigarettes?
Again a decision with a conflict of interest taken by EU in German/French favour.

As I said The countries in Northern Europe+Germany does not benefit from the EU but rather the opposite.

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 23:14

BDunnell

23rd January 2013, 23:16

Cameron is only playing this card because it obfuscates the fact that his party like Labor before it, has no idea of how to run the country.

Rather a sweeping statement — and I say that as someone who would never vote for his party. There are, as I've outlined, more specific reasons behind this move happening at this time.

Rollo

23rd January 2013, 23:39

I kinda figured that the key date for announcing such a thing now in particular has to do with timing in relation to the budget.

We're less than 8 weeks away from the magical appearance of the Red Boxes. That's enough time to get the readers of the Daily Mail etc riled up, to drip feed a few announcements to the red tops via a few leaks and to spin it nicely so that Cameron and Osborne look like the shining saviours of the world.
It might even paint Mark Carney as the incoming Governor of the Bank of England with a brighter colour before he intends to do who knows what.

I think that this whole thing is about creating the sort of spin which Graeme Swann and Monty Panesar would be proud of.

Big Ben

23rd January 2013, 23:58

This issue becomes tiresome. Just go already. It(UK)'s like one of those guys who keeps saying he's leaving to make people beg he stays some more. Let them live their dreamy lives on their lollipop island if that's what they want. The EU is already a very slow and undecided entity... not having a member that's always against anything can't really be that bad.

Dave B

23rd January 2013, 23:59

Cameron, not for the first time, is allowing outside influences to dictate policy in a weak attempt to be all things to all people. He's so fixated on trying to do what he thinks will be popular that he loses focus on what's right or important.

Anyway, popularity be damned. Popularity gives you the X-Factor and Katie Price. And UKIP, who will poll well, pick up a huge protest vote in the European elections, then collapse in a sea of lost deposits at the General Election. They're a single issue one man band.

Cameron calls UKIP "closet racists". He can't even get that right.

Closet.... :laugh:

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 00:02

Cameron calls UKIP "closet racists". He can't even get that right.

I was delighted when he said that. A rare instance of daring to be controversial. Then his recent effort to roll back from it was utterly pathetic.

Brown, Jon Brow

24th January 2013, 00:12

It does alarm me when 'Daily Express headline' myths about EU banana bend rules etc are put forward in an argument that could serverely crimple our economy.

Any problems that we have with the EU would be better solved if instead of sitting on the sidelines, we actually got involved more. Too many of our MEPs (mostly UKIP) go to Brussels to cause a stir which doesn't help us at all.

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 00:20

Any problems that we have with the EU would be better solved if instead of sitting on the sidelines, we actually got involved more.

Not least in efforts genuinely to reform the EU and render it more relevant.

ioan

24th January 2013, 01:54

Why are the PIIGS countries having problem in the first place? Its because the EU/EMU and BECAUSE of the EURO.
All EMU member countries have to have the same financial politics. But what's good for Germany isn't necessarily
good for Spain or Greece. Is it a coincident that the problem have arisen since the Euro was launched?

If each country would have stuck to their native currency they could have adjusted the currency
up or down depending if its good or bad times. Especially a country like Greece which relies allot on tourism.
With the the Euro and the EMU financial politics

What common market? You mean when Continental tires got EU funds for closing the tire factory in Gislaved to move it to Portugal?
Or how my tax-money are poured over the people who can't be bothered to work after they have turned 50?

Take a look at this PDF that shows which countries that are net recipients / netto contributors.
Look extra carefully at the columns for Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000273546.pdf

The organization is to big, to bureaucratic and to corrupted. The EU/EMU is a like cancer that have to go.
Replace it with a smaller loosely assembled trade/work agreement.

You could also ask about the decisions that are made in Brussels. If the are decisions that needs to be take
that has conflict of interest between two or more member states. To who's benefit do you suppose the decisions will be made?
To a country like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Estonia? Or to countries like Germany, Belgium, France?

Why should decisions that is a matter for Sweden only be taken in Brussels? (Volvo trucks attempt to merge with Scania).
Volvo wanted to merge with Scania but the EU said no and Scania was bought by German V.A.G group.
EU considered that Volvo/Scania would be to dominant on the Swedish market. So its none of EU's *"#¤&@$ business.
A conflict of interest like mentioned before and the decision was taken in German favour.

The so called "inner market", to who's benefit? Sweden's? Hardly likely. France, Germany? Yes quite certainly.
EU is doing the best it can to try and ban snus. But i see no attempts on banning German and French cigarettes?
Again a decision with a conflict of interest taken by EU in German/French favour.

As I said The countries in Northern Europe+Germany does not benefit from the EU but rather the opposite.

Why is this all due to the EU?!
The PIIGS aren't having problems because of the Euro, they would be in the same or deeper crap even with their own currency.
I usually agree with you bust this post of yours is born out of frustration and is not really based on the real picture of the worlds economy.

ioan

24th January 2013, 01:55

Well, how do you square that with the problems in the UK, the USA... Coincidence?

The sort of decision that has also been taken regularly on the part of national competition authorities. Often they have a reasonable point.

Exactly. It is not like the EU invented all these regulations for itself.

Rudy Tamasz

24th January 2013, 07:57

Not least in efforts genuinely to reform the EU and render it more relevant.

EU is wholly based on the French government model. Do you sincerely think it can be reformed and made more relevant? Relevant to people outside the EU inner circle, I mean.

I am pretty negative about why and how Cameron started talking about the referendum, but I still have huge reservations about EU itself. Once the referndum devil is out I think now the challenge for everybody else on the British political scene is to come up with a reasonable response to Cameron's initiative and havea really educated debate on the issue.

donKey jote

24th January 2013, 08:58

Why are the PIIGS countries having problem in the first place? Its because the EU/EMU and BECAUSE of the EURO.
I know the Spanish case very well. It's not the EU or EURO who are to blame, it's the corrupt Spanish politicians not cutting the building bubble for their friends in time. Obviously they like to divert the blame and demonise Merkel, but they are otherwise happy to be "part of Europe".

What common market? You mean when Continental tires got EU funds for closing the tire factory in Gislaved to move it to Portugal?
I don't know about them getting funds for that.
However, they also even shut down the factory in Hannover (where they are seated!) to move it to the Czech republic ;)

SGWilko

24th January 2013, 10:32

if Scotland votes for independence.....

It'll never happen.....

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 11:52

And how would this 'frank and open discussion' work, exactly? Such terms get thrown around with no thought as to what they mean. In the newspapers? On radio phone-ins? On internet forums?

Um.... yes. In newspapers, on the TV, in pubs, on the radio and indeed; on the interweb forums like this.

So, let me be frank and try to turn this into a more open discussion with a genuine question.

What would be the benefit and detriment to the UK of pulling out of the EU?

Lets look at the issues a bit more and rather than just putting our opinions down here, look at what the real situation is.

Immigration?
Employment?
Exports?
Imports?
Taxation?
Regulations?
Etc.

SGWilko

24th January 2013, 12:09

Just think about it, a bunch of EU countries would have went bankrupt in the last 5 years if it wasn't for the EU.

Not necessarily the EU, but the single currency has led to many countries overspending as a result of easy credit from the ECB. Ireland springs to mind.

Then there is the endemic curruption we see causing the pain in Greece. They should never have been allowed to join the single currency, were it not for some clever book cooking.

I suggest therefore with the exeption of Ireland, most countries currently taking bailouts, would have been in trouble eventually anyway.......

Dave B

24th January 2013, 13:00

Viking

24th January 2013, 13:17

Frankly my dear i don't give a damn...

We gave you lot the Nobel Peace Price so stay calm :D

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 13:47

One question which I never hear UKIP and their ilk address: if we somehow stop EU migrants from "coming over here and taking our jobs" (Copyright Express Newspapers Ltd), what happens to the hundreds of thousands of Brits who work on the continent? Unless we wish to be massive hypocrites, of course...

Good point to raise but surely people have been going to different countries to work before the EU was constructed. After all Dave, we're not talking about the BNP here but about the issues with being a full member of the EU or whether reverting to a more common market would be better for the UK.

Putting control of it into Westminster should pose little issue. If someone wants to live and work in the UK then they would need to apply for the appropiate documentation as they do today. It would just mean that there would be greater control over who is coming in and ensure that those that contribute in the UK receive the benefits of the society they pay into.

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 14:09

Is anyone interested in discussing the merits of staying in the EU as opposed to leaving it or are we all decided on our stance and will continue to just argue moot points until the referendum?

I'm happy to admit that if the vote was today, I would vote No to the EU, but that may be because I don't have all the facts and I'm very open to understanding the issues in more detail.

For a start I have heard that the UK economy will suffer by not being a part of the EU. Why? What difference would there be to what we have now? I have heard that we would need to negiotiate trade agreements with each country but why should that be? Couldn't we maintain a generic trade agreement with the EU which applies to it's member states.

Also, we export about £100,000M to EU countries and the same to the rest of the world but we import about £130,000M from the EU and slightly less from the rest of the world. What would be the impact on the UK economy? Would this change and surely, if we're importing more than we export, then the EU would be quite keen to maintain a competitive working relationship, wouldn't it?

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 14:22

Um.... yes. In newspapers, on the TV, in pubs, on the radio and indeed; on the interweb forums like this.

In that case, there is this 'open and honest debate' on every issue under the sun. It's an utterly empty phrase.

What would be the benefit and detriment to the UK of pulling out of the EU?

The main detriment, in my eyes, would be the victory for the 'little Englander' mentality — the view that mainland Europeans may be all very willing to accept 'government from Brussels', but it's 'not for the likes of us'. I believe the effects on trade, both inward and outward, would be significant, and that as far as laws are concerned we wouldn't notice the slightest difference in our daily lives.

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 14:28

Good point to raise but surely people have been going to different countries to work before the EU was constructed. After all Dave, we're not talking about the BNP here but about the issues with being a full member of the EU or whether reverting to a more common market would be better for the UK.

Putting control of it into Westminster should pose little issue. If someone wants to live and work in the UK then they would need to apply for the appropiate documentation as they do today. It would just mean that there would be greater control over who is coming in and ensure that those that contribute in the UK receive the benefits of the society they pay into.

The existence of the EU has rendered much easier movement between countries (something I would have thought any free-marketeer should have no objection to), and I do not think that greater control is required. I fear that the levels of control that you and others would like to see put in place would lead to much perfectly legitimate migration being stopped on unfounded grounds. Look at the blatant racism directed towards migrants from Eastern Europe, many of whom have made a great contribution to the UK economy, not least through taking jobs well beneath them that British people didn't want.

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 14:29

In that case, there is this 'open and honest debate' on every issue under the sun. It's an utterly empty phrase.

Well, we could try rather than commenting on phrases you find offensive ;)

The main detriment, in my eyes, would be the victory for the 'little Englander' mentality — the view that mainland Europeans may be all very willing to accept 'government from Brussels', but it's 'not for the likes of us'.

I'm not really too bothered about peoples mentality but about the facts. Whether you're a Europhobic or Europhile is just a label in my opinion.

I believe the effects on trade, both inward and outward, would be significant, and that as far as laws are concerned we wouldn't notice the slightest difference in our daily lives.

What do you base that assumption on? What logic leads you to that opinion?

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 14:34

What do you base that assumption on? What logic leads you to that opinion?

I believe there would be a significant backlash against the UK in other countries, and that the existing effect of European laws on our daily lives is far more minimal than many would think. The former is an opinion; the latter I believe to be fact.

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 14:47

The existence of the EU has rendered much easier movement between countries (something I would have thought any free-marketeer should have no objection to), and I do not think that greater control is required. I fear that the levels of control that you and others would like to see put in place would lead to much perfectly legitimate migration being stopped on unfounded grounds. Look at the blatant racism directed towards migrants from Eastern Europe, many of whom have made a great contribution to the UK economy, not least through taking jobs well beneath them that British people didn't want.

As for your first point, yes, I agree. Movement between Countries in the EU is straight forward but this will in no way change if the UK leaves. I offer Switzerland as a prime example.

However, what perfectly legal migration are you concerned about? Again, I stress we are not talking about installing the BNP in Whitehall but of contemplating less strenous ties with the EU. Legitimate Migration has many benefits so why would an elected UK government deny legitimate migration. There's no logic to that?? Could you be guilty of believing scare mongers stories from pro-europe supporters?

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 14:51

I believe there would be a significant backlash against the UK in other countries, and that the existing effect of European laws on our daily lives is far more minimal than many would think. The former is an opinion; the latter I believe to be fact.

Ben. I'm sounding a bit like a scratched record here but I have to ask again. Why is your opinion what it is? You're an intelligent chappie so I doubt you have just taken this stance whilly nilly. Why would people trading with the UK not want to do so. They have stuff to buy and sell the same as we do so why would they cut off their nose to spite their face if it made economic sense? All this 'I think' and 'I believe' is conjecture with no base at the moment.

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 14:58

Ben. I'm sounding a bit like a scratched record here but I have to ask again. Why is your opinion what it is?

My opinion is what it is because I fundamentally believe in the need for close ties with Europe, and equally fundamentally I dislike the manner in which many of those who line up against close ties with Europe do so, and have no wish to be associated with them. Set against this, stories of corruption (when properly proven, like Eurostat — not conspiracy theories) and the monolithic size and extent of the set of European institutions we now have trouble me. I don't claim to know the answer to these problems, but I do feel sure that it's not withdrawal from the EU.

Big Ben

24th January 2013, 15:15

An interesting read:

Britain's future: Goodbye Europe | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless)

wedge

24th January 2013, 15:34

I believe there would be a significant backlash against the UK in other countries, and that the existing effect of European laws on our daily lives is far more minimal than many would think. The former is an opinion; the latter I believe to be fact.

They may be minimal but they can be infuriating.

Take for example the new tyre labelling system which is contradictory regarding wet weather grip and rolling resistance/fuel efficiency.

EU needs to revise fuel mileage testing as they are done in laboratory conditions. Official figures do not reflect the real world and are biased towards emissions.

Knock-on

24th January 2013, 16:02

An interesting read:

Britain's future: Goodbye Europe | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless)

I founf the featured comment interesting as well.

"Euroscepticism is hardening in the Conservative Party, in much the same way as social conservatism has gone from being a powerful current in America’s Republican Party to an intolerant orthodoxy.” Not a fair comparison, I fear.

It’s not that the Conservatives have changed, but it’s rather that the EU has changed, and in some ways almost out of recognition. In the 1970s, most Conservatives accepted the concept of the EU as an amicable and fairly loose association of like-minded states intent on the creation of a single market. But after 2000 and the advent of the euro, things changed dramatically, and it rapidly became apparent that the ultimate aim of the euro was full political union. It’s the prospect of European political union that alienates many Conservatives, and for that matter many other Britons, too.

It’s not that the Conservatives have suddenly become petulant reactionaries. It’s that change in Europe has taken a direction that is entirely at odds with the philosophy – one that emphasizes national independence and laissez faire economics - that has been at the heart of the Conservative party since its formation. It’s unfortunate that the continental Europeans are annoyed, to be sure, but before damning Britain out of hand, they should perhaps read a little more British political history.

This touches on my current view on this subject. The EU as a concept is good. A economic body that carries a lot of weight and can streamline Trade.

The problem as I see it is that it's gone way past those ideals now. It's moving more and more towards political almalgamation rather than a Trade platform.

If the EU continues on this course, then we are right to ask the question and give the British public a democratic choice but we need to understand the ramifications of leaving or staying.

Wasted Talent

24th January 2013, 16:13

Just think about it, a bunch of EU countries would have went bankrupt in the last 5 years BECAUSE of the EU (or rather more specifically the Euro as they couldn't devalue to remain competitive)........

Fixed that for you.....

WT

Wasted Talent

24th January 2013, 16:15

It does alarm me when 'Daily Express headline' myths about EU banana bend rules etc are put forward in an argument that could serverely crimple our economy.

Ever heard of irony??

WT

Wasted Talent

24th January 2013, 16:18

I know the Spanish case very well. It's not the EU or EURO who are to blame, it's the corrupt Spanish politicians not cutting the building bubble for their friends in time. Obviously they like to divert the blame and demonise Merkel, but they are otherwise happy to be "part of Europe".

I don't know about them getting funds for that.
However, they also even shut down the factory in Hannover (where they are seated!) to move it to the Czech republic ;)

Ford is shutting it's factory in Southampton where Transit vans are made and transferring production to a facility in Turkey because the Turkish factory is getting EU development funding to modernise the factory - even though Turkey isn't even in the EU. Fact.

Absolute madness.........

WT

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 16:20

Ever heard of irony??

Irony only works if the ironic statement in question is intended not to be serious. I'd hazard a guess that the sentence we're discussing was very much your actual opinion.

Wasted Talent

24th January 2013, 16:25

Irony only works if the ironic statement in question is intended not to be serious. I'd hazard a guess that the sentence we're discussing was very much your actual opinion.

Only the banana was ironic the rest represents my views.

I am not against close ties, or a common market where we sell to Europe and Europe sells to us, but I simply want to retain political control in the hands of people that I can actually vote against and get rid of if they aren't any good.

Maybe it is because we are a long established open market democratic country - we got rid our dictators centuries rather than decades ago....

WT

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 16:39

I am not against close ties, or a common market where we sell to Europe and Europe sells to us, but I simply want to retain political control in the hands of people that I can actually vote against and get rid of if they aren't any good.

Very considerable power indeed is vested on our own shores in unelected individuals.

Maybe it is because we are a long established open market democratic country - we got rid our dictators centuries rather than decades ago....

I think this is utter rot, to be honest. There is much the UK could learn from the way in which politics is practiced in certain other European countries along the lines of those you describe. A British superiority complex is totally unfounded.

donKey jote

24th January 2013, 16:58

Take for example the new tyre labelling system which is contradictory regarding wet weather grip and rolling resistance/fuel efficiency.
What exactly do you mean by contradictory? Wet grip and fuel efficiency are largely conflicting targets... the same energy dissipation that gives you grip tends to give you wear and rolling resistance.
In principal it can't be bad idea to label both, can it?

EU needs to revise fuel mileage testing as they are done in laboratory conditions. Official figures do not reflect the real world and are biased towards emissions.
Not solely an EU issue...

donKey jote

24th January 2013, 17:47

Ford is shutting it's factory in Southampton where Transit vans are made and transferring production to a facility in Turkey because the Turkish factory is getting EU development funding to modernise the factory - even though Turkey isn't even in the EU. Fact.

Absolute madness.........

WT

Fact indeed:
Ford's £80m EU loan to boost Turkey factory - and close ours (From Daily Echo) (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10020273.Ford_s___80m_EU_loan_to_boost_Turkey_fact ory___and_close_ours/)
Share a bit of your blame for Ford and your government too though, not just the EU.
But there's hope for you yet: even if the UK does leave the EU, you might still be eligible for development funding for your ailing industry.........

BDunnell

24th January 2013, 17:53

Fact indeed:
Ford's £80m EU loan to boost Turkey factory - and close ours (From Daily Echo) (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10020273.Ford_s___80m_EU_loan_to_boost_Turkey_fact ory___and_close_ours/)

Now that sort of thing I find bizarre. However, note the absurd comment from Nigel Farage: 'The sting in the tail is that the money to update the (Kocaeli) factory is coming from those same workers and their families as British taxpayers are being forced to lend millions of pounds without ever being consulted'. Yes, a tiny, tiny proportion of the money will indeed come from those people. And to think some people believe UKIP makes a serious contribution to the debate!

race aficionado

24th January 2013, 19:27

As an outsider I am enjoying this civilized discourse.

I'm learning here . . . .

Please carry on.

Brown, Jon Brow

24th January 2013, 20:22

An interesting read:

Britain's future: Goodbye Europe | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567940-british-exit-european-union-looks-increasingly-possible-it-would-be-reckless)

One of the positives of leaving Europe:

Freed of the common agricultural policy, its food could become cheaper.

No it wouldn't! If the market price for food was any lower most farmers would go out of business. The profit margins for farmers are small enough as it is. Without the EU agriculture in the UK would be doomed and the only affordable meat in the supermarkets would be from South America.

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:25

Not necessarily the EU, but the single currency has led to many countries overspending as a result of easy credit from the ECB. Ireland springs to mind.

Then there is the endemic curruption we see causing the pain in Greece. They should never have been allowed to join the single currency, were it not for some clever book cooking.

I suggest therefore with the exeption of Ireland, most countries currently taking bailouts, would have been in trouble eventually anyway.......

I wasn't aware that the countries were getting credits from the ECB and that's why they have issues. AFAIK these countries have issues with not being able to pay bank private banks whom gave them loans, not the ECB.

MrJan

24th January 2013, 20:28

The main detriment, in my eyes, would be the victory for the 'little Englander' mentality — the view that mainland Europeans may be all very willing to accept 'government from Brussels', but it's 'not for the likes of us'.

The irony is that we seem to make far more fuss about trying to follow EU regs, often mistakenly, than other countries. Health and safety seems to be one area where we take some regulations and misconstrue the intention/meaning and some tosser decides that it means we all have to be in a bubble. In truth very few regulations stop you from doing anything, it's idiots implementing them and the Daily Snail getting wound up.

The recent proposal for a 'road worthiness test' was a perfect example. A simple directive was suggested and next thing you know everyone that has a car is e-mailing a link like this one Armageddon | www.the-ace.org.uk (http://www.the-ace.org.uk/armageddon/#more-901) and saying that you can no longer modify a car, saying that you need to sign a petition or loads of business will go under. As with most viral information it was wrong, and a simple bit of googling proved it European Commission in the UK (http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/press-reports-on-ec-proposals-on-mot-tests-are-incorrect/)

The moral of the story - many English people are stupider than they think ;)

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:29

Good point to raise but surely people have been going to different countries to work before the EU was constructed.

Sure they they did, yeah, like back before the WWII?!
How many people were immigrating for work before WWII, other then those fleeing to the US from their bankrupt countries?
It is absurd to try to compare the freedom to move for a job that we have now with the absurd bureaucratic fight that such move meant 50 - 60 years ago.

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:33

For a start I have heard that the UK economy will suffer by not being a part of the EU. Why? What difference would there be to what we have now? I have heard that we would need to negiotiate trade agreements with each country but why should that be? Couldn't we maintain a generic trade agreement with the EU which applies to it's member states.

Also, we export about £100,000M to EU countries and the same to the rest of the world but we import about £130,000M from the EU and slightly less from the rest of the world. What would be the impact on the UK economy? Would this change and surely, if we're importing more than we export, then the EU would be quite keen to maintain a competitive working relationship, wouldn't it?

Just think about if selling your products in the EU (about 500 million people) for prices that would be 20+% higher.
Would you be able to stay competitive in a free market with such prices? Would people in one of the largest and most powerful market buy your stuff? Or would you lose 50% of your export income? Would you then be able to import anything at all or would you have to limit yourself to local only and chinese stuff like it was in the comunist countries before 1989?

Brown, Jon Brow

24th January 2013, 20:39

Just think about if selling your products in the EU (about 500 million people) for prices that would be 20+% higher.
Would you be able to stay competitive in a free market with such prices? Would people in one of the largest and most powerful market buy your stuff? Or would you lose 50% of your export income? Would you then be able to import anything at all or would you have to limit yourself to local only and chinese stuff like it was in the comunist countries before 1989?

Knock-On will reply by saying that we will be able to negotiate a free-trade deal like Norway and Switzerland have so we can avoid the export tariffs. What he will ignore is the fact that we will still have to obey the same regulations as the EU nations we are trading with, but we would no longer have a say on those regulations.

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:42

They may be minimal but they can be infuriating.

Take for example the new tyre labelling system which is contradictory regarding wet weather grip and rolling resistance/fuel efficiency.

EU needs to revise fuel mileage testing as they are done in laboratory conditions. Official figures do not reflect the real world and are biased towards emissions.

And how do you devise a real life test that you can reproduce again and again and again for each tested tire?
Well, you can not do that in another way then in a lab test, otherwise the various results can not be compared and are useless.

Franky

24th January 2013, 20:48

The irony is that we seem to make far more fuss about trying to follow EU regs, often mistakenly, than other countries. Health and safety seems to be one area where we take some regulations and misconstrue the intention/meaning and some tosser decides that it means we all have to be in a bubble. In truth very few regulations stop you from doing anything, it's idiots implementing them ...

That kind of a problem is also elsewhere.

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:51

I founf the featured comment interesting as well.

This touches on my current view on this subject. The EU as a concept is good. A economic body that carries a lot of weight and can streamline Trade.

The problem as I see it is that it's gone way past those ideals now. It's moving more and more towards political almalgamation rather than a Trade platform.

If the EU continues on this course, then we are right to ask the question and give the British public a democratic choice but we need to understand the ramifications of leaving or staying.

People and societies are very very complex systems, and what the EU is doing is the right way to achieve solidarity between Europeans.
Just a trade platform, which by the way is working well, is not enough in case of a crisis like the one we are going through since 2007. We all saw that as soon as the pocket money is in danger everyone tries to fight for himself and the whole trade platform is stressed and the EURO is in danger.

It is with a higher level of ethnic, social and obviously political fusion that a stable platform can be achieved, and what the EU is doing is good for the future of the Europeans. It will take a few more generations until kids and young people will consider themselves Europeans first before being English, German, French and so on. And before you jump on me I will remind you that nationalism isn't a great positive example in Europe's history.

Anyway the game in the EU has changed a lot since 2007-2008 and with the notable exception of the UK most other countries have made efforts to make things advance in a positive way and this is a good sign for us.
The problem with UK is that you want to keep your cookie and also eat it at the same time.

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:55

Fixed that for you.....

WT

Fixed?
You replaced the whole quote with your rubbish ideas.
Why don't you just post your nationalistic believes instead of modifying 90% of other people's posts?

ioan

24th January 2013, 20:58

ioan

24th January 2013, 21:00

Maybe it is because we are a long established open market democratic country - we got rid our dictators centuries rather than decades ago....

WT

:rotflmao:

ioan

24th January 2013, 21:05

ioan

24th January 2013, 21:25

And a great post from the Economist article, posted by Shaun39. A good read for Knockie:

[quote="shaun39 on economist.com"]
The EU removes far more regulation than it creates - hell, that's the whole point of it, and the reason that British business rallies behind the EU (unlike the UKIP loonies & Empire-dreaming farmer toffs of the Tory fringe).

The EU is by far the strongest force in the world for liberal free trade. The numbers speak for themselves: EU exports to non-EU countries are 3.35 times America's, and EU imports are 2.55 times US levels (despite similar consumption levels). http://t.co/Lbh7nQBQ

The EU is presently finalising a free trade agreement with Canada that runs much deeper than NAFTA (opening up a wider range of products & services, and removing far more non-tariff barriers). The EU actually has a more genuine free trade agreement with South Korea, running much deeper than America's. The EU is half way though developing a wider free trade area bringing in the whole Mediterranean area (Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon & Turkey so far - perhaps Syria). In West Africa, in Southern Africa and in Eastern Europe, the EU is making bits of aid and investment finance available conditional on incremental trade opening and extension of rule of law. The EU dragged Russia into the WTO. The EU is finalising free trade with Singapore, and is about to begin deep free trade negotiations (same model as Korea - that really is radical) with Japan (pretty closed to the world for the most part, with massive price disparities & arbitrage opportunities across services & products - this will be awesome of we can pull it off, and fantastic for business).

And of course, the EU and US are about to enter tentative negotiations on a free trade agreement (the full launch, I gather, should happen after EU-Canada). We've deliberately build the EU-Canada free trade agreement with a new rules of origin definition, so that Canadian businesses can import from the US (tariff free under NAFTA) and re-export to the EU tariff free (providing only minimal added value in Canada). That puts enormous pressure on American businesses to lobby for US-EU free trade. So we've strategically laid the ground to force a grand compromise with the US (they talk the talk, but the US is one of the most protectionist & insular developed countries out there, thanks to Congress re-writing & building special interests into every trade treaty that the executive signs).

And it all shows in trade numbers and in investment patterns (the EU's international investments have grown far faster than America's, while international investments in the EU have likewise grown faster than that in America]

Rollo

24th January 2013, 23:20

Maybe it is because we are a long established open market democratic country - we got rid our dictators centuries rather than decades ago....

Hee hee hee.

The people who really run the UK in terms of making actual economic decisions are in "The City" and Canary Wharf and are pretty well much unelected dictators who are not in the least bit democratically elected.

Heck, you've even admitted as much in this very thread.

Ford is shutting it's factory in Southampton where Transit vans are made and transferring production to a facility in Turkey because the Turkish factory is getting EU development funding to modernise the factory - even though Turkey isn't even in the EU. Fact.

Absolute madness.........

No. not "absolute madness" but a business decision. One which you never voted for I bet.

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 00:03

No. not "absolute madness" but a business decision. One which you never voted for I bet.

It's funny when people who presumably believe in the free market don't like it when the market operates freely, isn't it?

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 00:48

And a great post from the Economist article, posted by Shaun39. A good read for Knockie:

Glad you posted that one and yes, I did read it.

Problem is, it rather blows a hole in your arguement that trade for the UK will cost more. All the UK needs to do is achieve what South Korea, Eastern Europe et al have done. Simples :D

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 00:51

Sure they they did, yeah, like back before the WWII?!
How many people were immigrating for work before WWII, other then those fleeing to the US from their bankrupt countries?
It is absurd to try to compare the freedom to move for a job that we have now with the absurd bureaucratic fight that such move meant 50 - 60 years ago.

50 - 60 years ago? Surely the EU has only been round for 20 years so what are you going on about?

Pre WWII indeed :laugh:

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 00:51

Glad you posted that one and yes, I did read it.

Problem is, it rather blows a hole in your arguement that trade for the UK will cost more. All the UK needs to do is achieve what South Korea, Eastern Europe et al have done. Simples :D

Well, several countries in eastern Europe have achieved this in recent years while being members of the EU.

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 01:03

One of the positives of leaving Europe:

No it wouldn't! If the market price for food was any lower most farmers would go out of business. The profit margins for farmers are small enough as it is. Without the EU agriculture in the UK would be doomed and the only affordable meat in the supermarkets would be from South America.

Don't get me started on this one!!

Leaving aside the debarcle about EU Agriculture Subsidies, the real problem is the Supermarkets.

We are so brainwashed as to what a carrot or a potatoe should look like that vast quantities are left to rot because they don't satisfy these criteria. Sometimes up to 90% of a crop can go to waste because of this and conservative figures of 40-50% of all crops in this country don't get used.

It gets worse when you consider that Supermarkets just cancel orders because of a change of weather when Farmers have grown the produce ready for harvest but again, it's cheaper to let them rot than do anything with them. It's criminal.

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 01:10

Roamy

25th January 2013, 08:01

I believe people should be free to move between countries as they wish.
they do - all the muslims are coming to your house

Rudy Tamasz

25th January 2013, 08:12

Well, several countries in eastern Europe have achieved this in recent years while being members of the EU.

I still don't see why you need to delegate sovereignty to somebody to achieve what a simple bilateral or multilateral trade agreement can do for you.

Big Ben

25th January 2013, 08:24

I wasn't aware that the countries were getting credits from the ECB and that's why they have issues. AFAIK these countries have issues with not being able to pay bank private banks whom gave them loans, not the ECB.

That's true. But they did have access to cheap loans because they were part of the euro zone. I think people should rather point fingers to greedy bankers and reckless politicians rather than the EU as a whole.

Big Ben

25th January 2013, 08:27

Big Ben

25th January 2013, 08:32

The moral of the story - many English people are stupider than they think ;)

That one goes for every country

SGWilko

25th January 2013, 10:10

for your ailing industry.........

What industry? What do we have left exactly....

SGWilko

25th January 2013, 10:23

what is the root (no pun intended) cause of this? The shopping habits of the public, surely?

Shopping habits effectively crafted and didctated to many by the very same supermarket chains that crap all over the farming industry - by lowering prices but giving us less while making us think we are getting more.....

If we leave the EU, what is to stop us picking ourselves up, dusting ourselves off, and become much more self sufficient.

If we as a country then manufacture a product that the countries in the EU want/need, they'll have to pay for it.........

Mark

25th January 2013, 11:03

Because history shows isolationism doesn't work at all.

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 11:33

Spot on Mark. There are tangible benefits in remaining within the EU but that's not to say we should stay in at all costs.

It seems that it's time to have a reality check as to what we are signed up to. That would appear to be prudent and responsible. The original remit of the common market and EU has morphed out of all recognition in the last 15 years so I for one am glad we are looking at this as a nation. In fact, I'm glad the UK is taking a leading role in this matter as other Countries Leaders are coming round to our viewpoint that the EU needs to change and be more flexible.

This is a time to look at what works and what doesn't. It's right to ask the questions, strive to improve the EU from within and if not, to leave an organisation that doesn't suit our needs any more. I think it would be preferential to stick with the EU if we, as DC has said, can negiotiate a solution that suits Britian and the other member states but if not, we should be responsible enough to move out of an organisation that is detrimental to our country and not just blindly follow an unaccountable bureaucracy out of fear and 'because you should' mentality.

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 11:44

Well, yes, the behaviour of the supermarkets is often utterly indefensible, but one has to ask: what is the root (no pun intended) cause of this? The shopping habits of the public, surely? And if one believes in the unfettered free market, what argument is there against the rise of the supermarkets on that basis?

Great point. We are the consumer and have to shoulder a good proportion of the blame.

I was thinking about this the other day and would welcome a budget shop that sold cheaper veg that might be an odd shape. We have started shopping further afield at Lidl and Veg Markets as it's cheaper and feels more ethical than Sainsburys even with the fuel to get there. I'm really beginning to resent to Supermarkets and what they are doing.

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 11:54

Knock-On will reply by saying that we will be able to negotiate a free-trade deal like Norway and Switzerland have so we can avoid the export tariffs. What he will ignore is the fact that we will still have to obey the same regulations as the EU nations we are trading with, but we would no longer have a say on those regulations.

If we came out of Europe than I think it would be quite logical to fomulate a framework that allows free movement as it pretty much is today. Trade agreements would similarly need to follow suit.

However, this is the worse case scenario. If we cannot work with our European partners then it will be very sad but justify the decision to leave. There seems to be a rising swell of opinion in Europe that the EU has got away from it's remit and possibly it's time to take a fresh look at this.

Knock-on

25th January 2013, 12:08

People and societies are very very complex systems, and what the EU is doing is the right way to achieve solidarity between Europeans.
Just a trade platform, which by the way is working well, is not enough in case of a crisis like the one we are going through since 2007. We all saw that as soon as the pocket money is in danger everyone tries to fight for himself and the whole trade platform is stressed and the EURO is in danger.

I agree. If you are going to have 1 nation of Europe, then you have to have total integration. The problem is that nobody has ever admitted it and instead Brussles has been absorbing more and more power by stealth and subtefuge. As for the Euro, it was a mistake from the outset. Brussles tried to impose a currency and monetary policy where it just didn't fit and rather than wait until countries were ready, they bent and broke their rules for joining in a flawed strategy that nearly broke it.

It is with a higher level of ethnic, social and obviously political fusion that a stable platform can be achieved, and what the EU is doing is good for the future of the Europeans. It will take a few more generations until kids and young people will consider themselves Europeans first before being English, German, French and so on. And before you jump on me I will remind you that nationalism isn't a great positive example in Europe's history.

I think this is what will happen if it's unchecked. Some people want that and some are uncomfortable. This is the Crux of the matter and very well stated :up:

Anyway the game in the EU has changed a lot since 2007-2008 and with the notable exception of the UK most other countries have made efforts to make things advance in a positive way and this is a good sign for us.
The problem with UK is that you want to keep your cookie and also eat it at the same time.

What's the point of having a cookie and not eating it :p

Seriously though, you suggest that Europe is united on this and it's just the pesky UK that's disgruntled. I don't agree with this assessment at all.

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 12:30

Shopping habits effectively crafted and didctated to many by the very same supermarket chains that crap all over the farming industry - by lowering prices but giving us less while making us think we are getting more.....

If one believes in personal responsibility, as I assume you do, then it remains the fault of the consumer for buying into it, surely?

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 12:32

Great point. We are the consumer and have to shoulder a good proportion of the blame.

I was thinking about this the other day and would welcome a budget shop that sold cheaper veg that might be an odd shape. We have started shopping further afield at Lidl and Veg Markets as it's cheaper and feels more ethical than Sainsburys even with the fuel to get there. I'm really beginning to resent to Supermarkets and what they are doing.

I agree, but think that this particular discussion — while relevant here — might possibly be better had in the high street thread, so long as we don't start arguing there about Europe as well!

BleAivano

25th January 2013, 12:56

I agree. If you are going to have 1 nation of Europe, then you have to have total integration. The problem is that nobody has ever admitted it and instead Brussles has been absorbing more and more power by stealth and subtefuge. As for the Euro, it was a mistake from the outset. Brussles tried to impose a currency and monetary policy where it just didn't fit and rather than wait until countries were ready, they bent and broke their rules for joining in a flawed strategy that nearly broke it.

I think this is what will happen if it's unchecked. Some people want that and some are uncomfortable. This is the Crux of the matter and very well stated :up:

What's the point of having a cookie and not eating it :p

Seriously though, you suggest that Europe is united on this and it's just the pesky UK that's disgruntled. I don't agree with this assessment at all.

agreed, the support for EMU is very low in Sweden too (less then 20% (http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____345591.aspx)) and the support for EU is have also declined during the past couple of years.

I also agree on what you that Brussels, particular Rumpnissen and his gang, wants the EU to become a EUSSR.
A non-democratic country built on surveillance laws, registration of peoples opinions (Facebook is a golden tool for intelligence) centralised power (Brussels),
a non transparent organization which is very hard for people to affect.

I can no longer buy a SMS bus-tickets or anything else with my phone without it being registered (http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.456800/comments) by the operators (when, where, what)
information that they store and pass on to who ever wants it. Brussels wants to do they same with your e-mail and phone-calls and etc.
Why do they need that information? Information stored digitally for the authorities to check up on you and your whereabouts and to keep you in check.

Add censorship to this and doesn't it ring a bell? Haven't we seen this before? Oh yes we have DDR, USSR, China, North Korea...

Franky

25th January 2013, 16:09

Add censorship to this and doesn't it ring a bell? Haven't we seen this before? Oh yes we have DDR, USSR, China, North Korea...

You forgot the USA

Wasted Talent

25th January 2013, 16:31

What industry? What do we have left exactly....

You obviously haven't looked around....

To take an area close to this forum, the UK produced over 1m cars and 2m engines last year. We are the world's pre-eminent area for motorsport industries.

We produce fantastic aero engines in Derby, major parts of every Airbus in various parts of the country, I could go on and on.....

WT

ioan

25th January 2013, 17:56

I still don't see why you need to delegate sovereignty to somebody to achieve what a simple bilateral or multilateral trade agreement can do for you.

You do not delegate sovereignty to anyone.
You should see the EU as an elitist club. You want to join there are rules, you don't like the rule get the F out.

As for you, I am not sure what your business is in this thread as your chances to be in the EU before 2050, it at all, are slim to none. I guess the Kremlin's rules are better and Putin does not want your sovereignty to throw you some change. Or is this a case of sour grapes?

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:00

Glad you posted that one and yes, I did read it.

Problem is, it rather blows a hole in your arguement that trade for the UK will cost more. All the UK needs to do is achieve what South Korea, Eastern Europe et al have done. Simples :D

You missed other posts pointing it out that those agreements aren't for free, there are rules that come with them that those countries have to abide by, and they have absolutely no say in those rules as they do not have full membership of the group, the only slight better situation is hat of the Swiss, however if UK leaves the EU I do not believe that they will get a good deal at all if any.

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:00

What industry? What do we have left exactly....

Good question.

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:02

If we as a country then manufacture a product that the countries in the EU want/need, they'll have to pay for it.........

What's that? Fish and chips? Porridge?
And even those the Chinese can make them as good and cheaper.

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:17

I agree. If you are going to have 1 nation of Europe, then you have to have total integration. The problem is that nobody has ever admitted it and instead Brussles has been absorbing more and more power by stealth and subtefuge. As for the Euro, it was a mistake from the outset. Brussles tried to impose a currency and monetary policy where it just didn't fit and rather than wait until countries were ready, they bent and broke their rules for joining in a flawed strategy that nearly broke it.

I do not see it like that.
Brussels didn't take any kind of power by shaky means, they did everything in a transparent way. IMO the problem is that most people, you included didn't bother to think about it and follow the processes that were ongoing during the last 15 years or so.
I have been a big follower of the EU, and I also did take advantage of most of their ideas, as I left Romania along time ago as an exchange student, part of the Erasmus program, a EU program that helps students to study abroad for 1 year by giving them financial support for that time, and I also took advantage of the freedom of movement to get a well paid job in France and then in Austria. And during all that time I have always kept an eye on what the EU was doing and unless your government double crossed you should have had quite a few referendums to vote about changes that were going on within the EU as it happened in many countries.
So, no Brussels didn't get power through shaky means, the changes have been adopted through agreement between all teh involved countries and these changes have been either voted on by referendum of by parliamentary vote in all countries involved.

I think this is what will happen if it's unchecked. Some people want that and some are uncomfortable. This is the Crux of the matter and very well stated :up:

Democracy means that the majority decides. Some people will always be unhappy no matter what, take Wasted Talent's example.

What's the point of having a cookie and not eating it :p

Ask your Prime Minister, he seems to be a specialist in that field.

Seriously though, you suggest that Europe is united on this and it's just the pesky UK that's disgruntled. I don't agree with this assessment at all.

To be honest, most people on mainland Europe associate the UK to the USA Trojan horse or puppet in the EU, and many wouldn't bother if you would just leave and let the rest get on with their vision for the common future of the Europeans. It might sound harsh but this is it.

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:26

Add censorship to this and doesn't it ring a bell? Haven't we seen this before? Oh yes we have DDR, USSR, China, North Korea...

Somehow you managed to forget the US of/and A ;) in your list.

I find it funny how people from countries where they never experienced dictatorship are talking about something they do not know first hand.
Take it from someone who did, the EU in the 15+ years since I followed it has increased the degree of freedom of all its inhabitants, it's just that people only take into account the slightly negative aspects, those where they get benefits are not worthy of discussion.

Say, how much was 1 minute of phone call within the EU, roaming or not? What about the cost of SMS, and that of data services while traveling abroad?
The fact that it went down almost 10 fold doesn't make the life easier?

Suggestion, get of your hands and do a bit of serious search about the topic, not just the crap that the idiotic and useless politicians have been spewing since the crisis started.
Without the EU we would all be poorer owning to ridiculously high import and export taxes and the power of huge international corporation on smaller communities.

Say, would have been the Swedish government be able to lower mobile communication prices when faced with Orange, T-Mobile, Vodafone and Co? The answer is a big no, they would have had them in their pocket. And this is just one example, but one that touches each of us on a daily basis.

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:27

You obviously haven't looked around....

To take an area close to this forum, the UK produced over 1m cars and 2m engines last year. We are the world's pre-eminent area for motorsport industries.

We produce fantastic aero engines in Derby, major parts of every Airbus in various parts of the country, I could go on and on.....

WT

And imagine if Airbus would bother buying overpriced parts from you if you were to leave the EU and had to pay 20+% taxes. They sure would take a step and make them in France or Germany and let you try with Boeing.

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 18:32

And imagine if Airbus would bother buying overpriced parts from you if you were to leave the EU and had to pay 20+% taxes. They sure would take a step and make them in France or Germany and let you try with Boeing.

National politicians, including one to whom I spoke about this very issue when BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus, seem to have convinced themselves of the line that the specific expertise at the Airbus UK factories will ensure that production stays in Britain. I think this is fanciful in the modern world.

ioan

25th January 2013, 18:39

National politicians, including one to whom I spoke about this very issue when BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus, seem to have convinced themselves of the line that the specific expertise at the Airbus UK factories will ensure that production stays in Britain. I think this is fanciful in the modern world.

Expertise is worthy, but much less worthy then ultimate price and staying competitive in the market.
I work for a company in a highly competitive technology sector and I can tell you that price is tops even though our customers can easily afford our products. An expensive product has to really be that much better then the competitor's if you want to convince the customer to buy from you. As of now neither Boeing nor Airbus can claim to have a large enough advantage that would warrant a price hike.

Brown, Jon Brow

25th January 2013, 19:51

Don't get me started on this one!!

Leaving aside the debarcle about EU Agriculture Subsidies, the real problem is the Supermarkets.

We are so brainwashed as to what a carrot or a potatoe should look like that vast quantities are left to rot because they don't satisfy these criteria. Sometimes up to 90% of a crop can go to waste because of this and conservative figures of 40-50% of all crops in this country don't get used.

It gets worse when you consider that Supermarkets just cancel orders because of a change of weather when Farmers have grown the produce ready for harvest but again, it's cheaper to let them rot than do anything with them. It's criminal.

Why do you think the supermarkets have such criteria on the shape of produce? I've worked in food retail for years and I can tell you that a majority of the waste is caused by the shopping habits of the customers.

Supermarkets would love to sell anything they want, it would mean more profit for them. But customers will always pick the juicier looking fruit, veg, meat etc

Well, yes, the behaviour of the supermarkets is often utterly indefensible, but one has to ask: what is the root (no pun intended) cause of this? The shopping habits of the public, surely? And if one believes in the unfettered free market, what argument is there against the rise of the supermarkets on that basis?

I agree to some extent, but what do you expect? The supermarkets aren't a charity, they are in fierce competition.

BDunnell

25th January 2013, 19:54

I agree to some extent, but what do you expect? The supermarkets aren't a charity, they are in fierce competition.

Precisely the point I'm making — as is yours above, relating to the shapes of vegetables. How will things improve? Only if consumer behaviour changes.

donKey jote

25th January 2013, 20:14

What industry? What do we have left exactly....

is offshore banking an industry ?

donKey jote

25th January 2013, 20:17

Lidl

you shop at a German :eek: supermarket ? :p :laugh:

donKey jote

25th January 2013, 20:22

agreed, the support for EMU is very low in Sweden too (less then 20% (http://www.scb.se/Pages/PressRelease____345591.aspx)) and the support for EU is have also declined during the past couple of years.

I also agree on what you that Brussels, particular Rumpnissen and his gang, wants the EU to become a EUSSR.
A non-democratic country built on surveillance laws, registration of peoples opinions (Facebook is a golden tool for intelligence) centralised power (Brussels),
a non transparent organization which is very hard for people to affect.

I can no longer buy a SMS bus-tickets or anything else with my phone without it being registered (http://www.idg.se/2.1085/1.456800/comments) by the operators (when, where, what)
information that they store and pass on to who ever wants it. Brussels wants to do they same with your e-mail and phone-calls and etc.
Why do they need that information? Information stored digitally for the authorities to check up on you and your whereabouts and to keep you in check.

Add censorship to this and doesn't it ring a bell? Haven't we seen this before? Oh yes we have DDR, USSR, China, North Korea...

sheesh ble :eek:
You almost sound as paranoid as the average forum US patriot! :p

SGWilko

25th January 2013, 20:29

If one believes in personal responsibility, as I assume you do, then it remains the fault of the consumer for buying into it, surely?

Yes, indeed, but - heres the rub that the big chains know - only those that can afford to. The genuinely poor families rely on supermarket pricing, plus the points schemes that can lead to cheap staycations......

SGWilko

25th January 2013, 20:30

You obviously haven't looked around....

To take an area close to this forum, the UK produced over 1m cars and 2m engines last year. We are the world's pre-eminent area for motorsport industries.

We produce fantastic aero engines in Derby, major parts of every Airbus in various parts of the country, I could go on and on.....

WT

Ah yes, but how many of those cars are made by British car companies?

donKey jote

25th January 2013, 20:35

I'm glad the UK is taking a leading role in this matter as other Countries Leaders are coming round to our viewpoint that the EU needs to change and be more flexible.
I remember one particular occasion when Britain lead itself in one direction while the other 26 agreed on the opposite :p

The subtle difference between leading or dragging lies in the direction of the momentum :)

Brown, Jon Brow

25th January 2013, 21:04

Ah yes, but how many of those cars are made by British car companies?

Even if they aren't British brands the jobs in the car industry still make a big contribution to the UK economy.

BDunnell

26th January 2013, 03:43

Yes, indeed, but - heres the rub that the big chains know - only those that can afford to. The genuinely poor families rely on supermarket pricing, plus the points schemes that can lead to cheap staycations......

Understood, naturally. It's a vicious circle, isn't it?

BDunnell

26th January 2013, 03:44

Even if they aren't British brands the jobs in the car industry still make a big contribution to the UK economy.

They do — but, equally, it's much easier for multinationals to remove those jobs from the UK at any time.

Rudy Tamasz

28th January 2013, 10:40

You do not delegate sovereignty to anyone.
You should see the EU as an elitist club. You want to join there are rules, you don't like the rule get the F out.

As for you, I am not sure what your business is in this thread as your chances to be in the EU before 2050, it at all, are slim to none. I guess the Kremlin's rules are better and Putin does not want your sovereignty to throw you some change. Or is this a case of sour grapes?

In country clubs they don't tell the members what shape of moustache to wear.

Speaking of Mr. Putin, I do not share your fascination with him.

BleAivano

28th January 2013, 11:40

sheesh ble :eek:
You almost sound as paranoid as the average forum US patriot! :p

Yeah I know it sounds paranoid but the laws/law suggestion are unfortunately very much real and so was the voting in Ireland.
To who's benefit are all those laws? Mine or the politicians? Why does the politicians or the authorities need to know when and where I took a bus?

Knock-on

28th January 2013, 12:33

Yeah I know it sounds paranoid but the laws/law suggestion are unfortunately very much real and so was the voting in Ireland.
To who's benefit are all those laws? Mine or the politicians? Why does the politicians or the authorities need to know when and where I took a bus?

This is my problem with the EU. It's unconstitutional and undemocratic.

The EU has now become a political club (as ioan likes to see it) rather than an economic one. Politicians have ceeded power to Brussles often with no mandate. The French and Dutch people, in an open vote on an EU Constitution, made their views very clear to their elected politicians but all the politicians did was amend the Laws to get around the voters wishes. Is that Democracy? In Ireland it looked like going the same way so they dropped the vote and changed the constitution to accept the new EU one.

Surely this railroading of electorate democratic wishes is wrong? All this nonsense about it being the UK that's the only country causing issues is quite encouraging for me because the politicians in other countries just ignore the electorate completely.

The more I look into this and the less people can provide any credible, checkable and above all, fair figures on why prices will be 50% higher (or whatever) if we leave, the more I think it's scaremongoring.

Hopefully, Cameron and other concerned EU partners can promote a forum to realign the EU to be better focused on Trade and less on liquidising the member countries into this super EU federal state.

SGWilko

28th January 2013, 17:30

I challenge anyone here to come up with a ratified set of EU accounts........

BDunnell

28th January 2013, 17:49

Surely this railroading of electorate democratic wishes is wrong? All this nonsense about it being the UK that's the only country causing issues is quite encouraging for me because the politicians in other countries just ignore the electorate completely.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

The notion that Britain can declare its superiority as Europe's lone defender of national sovereignty is utterly fanciful. Often its politicians, their stance driven by a rabid, scaremongering press, have made little positive contribution.

donKey jote

28th January 2013, 19:36

Why does the politicians or the authorities need to know when and where I took a bus?

I'd ask the UK politicians or authorities... there they take big brother surveillance cameras way beyond anything in the EU or probably anywhere else in the world. :p

BDunnell

28th January 2013, 19:43

I'd ask the UK politicians or authorities... there they take big brother surveillance cameras way beyond anything in the EU or probably anywhere else in the world. :p

To say nothing of those methods of surveillance carried out by private companies under no request from government.

donKey jote

28th January 2013, 21:06

or the twitching curtains from the cake-gargling grannies in the Neighbourhood Watch :p

BleAivano

5th February 2013, 02:54

EU to set up euro-election 'troll patrol' to tackle Eurosceptic surge

The European Parliament is to spend almost £2 million on press monitoring and trawling Eurosceptic debates on the internet for "trolls"
with whom to debate in the run-up and during euro-elections next year amid fears that hostility to the EU is growing.

EU to set up euro-election 'troll patrol' to tackle Eurosceptic surge - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/9845442/EU-to-set-up-euro-election-troll-patrol-to-tackle-Eurosceptic-surge.html)

Seems like the "innocent" créme de la créme of Brussels want to make sure that the wrong opinions
are cleaned away so that their propaganda will be uncontested,

Its allot of money that surely could have been used in a better way then to try to censor internet forums and such,

IMO the EU acts quite much like the Catholic church during the medieval age.
Monopoly on the "truth" and censorship of those who did not agree with the "truth".

Big Ben

5th February 2013, 08:26

IMO the EU acts quite much like the Catholic church during the medieval age.
Monopoly on the "truth" and censorship of those who did not agree with the "truth".

yeah... that's exactly what it is :laugh: .. oh the funny people of internet and the funny comparisons they make

ioan

5th February 2013, 19:06

Yep, this is getting funnier by the day!
Let's hope it stays in the funny ballpark and doesn't go much more towards the right extreme of the spectrum.

Rudy Tamasz

6th February 2013, 10:05

Yep, this is getting funnier by the day!
Let's hope it stays in the funny ballpark and doesn't go much more towards the right extreme of the spectrum.

Ioane, that left/right thing has been long gone, yet very few people realize it. Is Hollande really a socialist? Not quite. Is Barroso a conservative? I don't think so. The ideological masks are off. It's a good ole fight for power and money between national governments, who are pretty bad, and Brussels bureaucrats, who are worse yet. The things is, national governments are still somewhat accountable to their taxpayers, while Brussels guys are not.

Knock-on

6th February 2013, 14:02

If we can bring this back from the funny farm a second, did anyone read that article. It really is quite disturbing. I'm not talking about the billion euros or so being wasted on Euro museums which very few care about, nor the huge inflation busting budget rises in these times of austerity for the Euro advertising machine, but the blatant misuse of funds in some type of big brother, politically biased Internet police. This really is worrying.

Malbec

7th February 2013, 18:40

To be honest, most people on mainland Europe associate the UK to the USA Trojan horse or puppet in the EU, and many wouldn't bother if you would just leave and let the rest get on with their vision for the common future of the Europeans. It might sound harsh but this is it.

Yet Brits will still be surprised and offended that when Cameron turns up with his demands for complete renegotiation of Britain's membership in the EU that Merkel, Hollande and co. will turn round and tell him where to stick it.

You'll get a very good understanding of the root causes of Britain's mistrust of the EU if you go to the RAF museum in Hendon, specifically the Battle of Britain museum which shows how cricket playing Anglo-Saxon fighter pilots staved off invasion from those dirty Huns after the untrustworthy French folded, and we all know how the rest of those continentals either joined the Nazis or surrendered to them ASAP right? The only moral ones in the whole of the EU are the Brits and we should remind the smelly lilly-livered Yuurpeans of this at every opportunity. You may laugh but a lot of rural Daily Mail reading Brits do have prejudices that are not far off this.

We simply don't 'get' the core vision behind the EU in the way the French and Germans in particular and the rest of the continent to a lesser degree do.

The problem is that this representation of the EU as an organisation that seeks to invade Britain and attack its sovereignty is one that is seriously put forward by a large chunk of the media with no coverage of the benefits. Politicians do little to correct this for fear that they'll be destroyed.

Last week the CEO of Nissan made a simple statement about his concerns regarding Cameron's referendum proposals. It stated that Nissan highly values its investments in the UK where 80% of its (very well made) cars are exported to the EU, but that if there was a danger that Britain withdrew from the EU Nissan would have to reconsider future British investment. When a similar statement was made by the CEO of Toyota 15 years ago at the height of the Tory eurosceptic campaign he was attacked for meddling in British internal affairs, yet to me what he said is simply a statement of fact.

This isn't a threat, its a very real concern that investors will have about Britain. Merely by holding a referendum we have managed to reduce our attractiveness to foreign capital overnight. But thats OK because our economy is doing brilliantly at the moment and we're looking for new challenges right?

Or perhaps we should look at banking which generates £17 billion a year from trade with the EU. Many EU banks have significant offices in London and there is no getting away from the fact that London is an international banking centre.

Many Eurosceptics like to delude themselves that that is purely due to Britain's ingenuity in this field and because of an inherent advantage as an English-speaking centre that allows seamless trading with the US. In fact it is partly due to those reasons but also because our government zealously refuses to regulate our financial sector as much as other EU states do yet institutions based here benefit from free flow of capital to the rest of the EU.

I broadly agree with your posts on this thread ioan but there's a couple of things you and others left out. People talk about Norway and Switzerland as good models for Britain for non-EU members with free-trade agreements with the EU. Both countries contribute 100s of millions (could be more but not sure) to the EU budget in return for the trade agreements, and both countries are highly imbalanced economies with small populations but high capital generating industries (oil for Norway, banking for Switzerland) that the EU needs. Britain is not so lucky, little we provide is unique to our country and we would have to pay more anyway because of our markedly larger population, yet we would have no say whatsover in drawing up regulations.

Rudy Tamasz

8th February 2013, 08:21

Last week the CEO of Nissan made a simple statement about his concerns regarding Cameron's referendum proposals. It stated that Nissan highly values its investments in the UK where 80% of its (very well made) cars are exported to the EU, but that if there was a danger that Britain withdrew from the EU Nissan would have to reconsider future British investment. When a similar statement was made by the CEO of Toyota 15 years ago at the height of the Tory eurosceptic campaign he was attacked for meddling in British internal affairs, yet to me what he said is simply a statement of fact.

A very level headed post, which I truly liked. You got the facts straight. I only think that facts bring me to somewhat different conclusions. The statement by the CEO of Nissan highlights where the main problem of Britain's position relative to EU is. The problem is, Britain being within EU is not a win-win situation, as europhiles try to convince everybody. It's a trade-off. For the sake of certain economic benefits Britain has to put up with all the political mess that EU membership brings, including the erosion of sovereignty. Of course, different groups of population have different views on it and there can be no "one-size-fits-all" position. You Brits need to figure it out through whetever political mechanism seems to be appropriate for a national debate on such an issue.

That brings me to my next point. For now, democratic expression is about the main source of legitimacy in the modern world until somebody comes across and sets it otherwise. Politicians might think and do whatever they want, but overt contempt for Mail reading rural hoi polloi may cost them their careers.

Finally, I wouldn't invalidate the opinions prevailing among certain demographics just because these are or are thought to be based on stereotypes. I've seen quite a number of examples of stereotype based thinking among PhD types.

BDunnell

8th February 2013, 14:05

Finally, I wouldn't invalidate the opinions prevailing among certain demographics just because these are or are thought to be based on stereotypes. I've seen quite a number of examples of stereotype based thinking among PhD types.

As I see it, everyone indulges in stereotype-based thinking to some extent, but some do so from a more reasoned basis than others.

Malbec

8th February 2013, 14:53

It's a trade-off. For the sake of certain economic benefits Britain has to put up with all the political mess that EU membership brings, including the erosion of sovereignty.

Of course its a trade-off, any political agreement is always such.

Britain's problem is that while it could be a core EU member it doesn't behave like one. British politicians rarely if ever involve themselves in the establishment of grand visions like the Euro or the Schengen agreement from the start when they would actually have real influence. Instead they stand on the sidelines, making the odd comment and giving the impression of not really wanting to be involved. Then once those agreements come into effect British PMs often stand indignant (admittedly by the time these agreements come into effect there has been a change of PM) and demand often quite extensive changes to those agreements retrospectively. This might well be to pander to domestic public opinion but it also sours our relationship with core EU states, reducing our influence when the size of our economy should mean we are a key player able to sway EU policies more towards our liking.

I find this whole argument that the EU is too non-democratic rather weak. The democratically elected British PM and government have the ability to wield serious influence as I described above but don't except when its too late. Its no wonder France and Germany regard us as being non-constructive and obstructive, its because we are.

Finally, I wouldn't invalidate the opinions prevailing among certain demographics just because these are or are thought to be based on stereotypes. I've seen quite a number of examples of stereotype based thinking among PhD types.

I didn't invalidate anything.

There is a strong anti-EU sentiment in this country as evidenced by a recent survey that showed that nearly 50% of British voters would vote for leaving the EU if the referendum was held today. It is critical to understand why people feel that way, and while many may fear that we get bankrupted by crises involving the PIIG states there are a very large number of people who have deep seated fears about Europe that are in my opinion based on prejudice.

Try going to telegraph.co.uk, pick any article on Europe and go to the comments section. Its an interesting read.

Rudy Tamasz

8th February 2013, 15:46

Malbec

8th February 2013, 16:11

From my life experience I know that whenever you negotiate, you want to use your comparative advantage as your trump card. I don't think that being a pro-active member of EU inner circle could be Britain's comparative advantage. After all, this niche is occupied. You cannot be more pro-EU than France and Germany. On the other hand I'm sure that being the EU's squeaky wheel has benefitted Britain more than once.

I think you misunderstood my point.

It is not about being pro/anti-EU. There is no 'niche'.

It is about getting involved deeply in the process whereby the future development of the EU is shaped. Britain has an equal voice with France and Germany yet often refuses to take part in the decision making process but criticises the decisions once they are ratified and are about to be implemented. The complaint that Britain doesn't have a voice is invalid, Britain is utterly free to get involved in future projects from inception and shape them to our needs but doesn't. We are also a core member with a big contribution to the EU budget and wield considerable clout, but we do not use this where it would actually make a difference.

Tony Blair did to his credit recognise this but found that domestic political concerns meant that he couldn't do anything about it. No other British PM has even tried.

przemson

9th February 2013, 17:53

give more to greece

BleAivano

13th February 2013, 17:09

Martin Schulz who is the president of the European Union Parliament (EUP) have said
that the EUP wants to have a secret/closed voting of the new budget proposal since some of
the EUP MP's possible could be "In danger" of not being re-elected should the citizens find out how they voted.

They also said that a secret voting would help the EUP in voting down the new proposal as well
as allowing MPs to vote against the own party's official line since they claim that there are pressure
on some of the MPs to vote for the new proposal.

Now Euro MPs want a secret vote to block budget deal and defy the 27 leaders | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275960/Now-Euro-MPs-want-secret-vote-block-budget-deal-defy-27-leaders.html)
EU summit: Parliament seeking secret vote on budget deal | European Voice (http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/february/eu-summit-parliament-seeking-secret-vote-on-budget-deal/76388.aspx)
David Cameron Condemns MEPs For 'Secret' EU Budget Vote (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/11/david-cameron-eu-budget-meps_n_2661988.html)

Knock-on

15th February 2013, 09:44

The more I look into the EU, the more undemocratic it looks. I think my mind is made up that even if there is a financial penalty to pay, the UK would be better of outside of this union.

Knock-on

15th February 2013, 09:55

Question for Malbec. If the majority of the UK is against being a member of the EU then should we withdraw. What is so wrong with democracy that a nations wishes should be ignored?

BleAivano

15th February 2013, 12:08

Question for Malbec. If the majority of the UK is against being a member of the EU then should we withdraw.
What is so wrong with democracy that a nations wishes should be ignored?

Well if us in the northern Europe pulls out, then who is going to pay for them countries in southern Europe?

gadjo_dilo

15th February 2013, 12:13

Well if us in the northern Europe pulls out, then who is going to pay for them countries in southern Europe?

how arrogance....

Malbec

15th February 2013, 12:51

Question for Malbec. If the majority of the UK is against being a member of the EU then should we withdraw. What is so wrong with democracy that a nations wishes should be ignored?

Sure, if the UK population votes to leave then thats democracy, we should leave. Shame I wasn't talking about that.

That doesn't change the fact that many Brits are woefully ignorant of the benefits conferred by staying in the EU, primarily due to rather biased reporting and an underlying suspicion of the overall 'vision' underpinning the EU.

You claim the EU is non-democratic. I presume you understand that EU regulations are voted for by European MPs as voted by you right? I mean, you do take voting for your Euro MP deadly seriously don't you? Major treaties are hammered out via negotiations between European leaders or their representatives who are democratically elected, being democratic being an essential requirement for EU membership. I'm afraid that the structure of the EU is inherently no more or less democratic than its individual members. If anything the EU doesn't have a non-elected house that has the power to veto decisions made by the elected chamber making it a more democratic structure than the UK itself.

The 'advantages' of leaving the EU as proposed by you and others on this thread are non-existent as a little bit of research will show. You can learn this the easy way by doing some research or the hard way by voting for leaving the EU and wondering where all the jobs went in a decade's time.

Lets take the two examples of economies the UK should emulate as proposed by you.

East Europe. I presume this is a joke of some sort as their economic boom is the result of joining the EU, deregulation and denationalisation of their economies which comes hand in hand with EU membership and direct investment that resulted from other wealthier EU states. How do we emulate this by leaving the very organisation that caused this success?

South Korea. Really? Why would we want to emulate a country where 40-50% of the economy is due to chaebols like Samsung that effectively dictate government economic policy, making life miserable for small/medium sized businesses. The UK economy is utterly reliant on small/medium sized businesses, its one of the few strengths we have left. Why are you so keen on destroying that sector?

Malbec

15th February 2013, 13:06

Well if us in the northern Europe pulls out, then who is going to pay for them countries in southern Europe?

If you in North Europe no longer have direct access to South European consumers and labour how competitive would you be?

If Germany and other North European Eurozone states don't have South European countries effectively devaluing the Euro how would those export figures look?

BleAivano

15th February 2013, 17:01

how arrogance....

no its not.

What country do you live in and how much does your country pay/get from EU each year?

As I said before, Sweden and the other North European countries are the biggest netto payers in the union.
That means that we put way more money into the European Union that we receive from it.

Could you explain where the money is going then? If it does not come back to us where does it go?
Perhaps Spain? Portugal? Greece? And the money the EU have put into these countries as a result of the euro crisis?
So why should we up here continue to to put all this money into the EU? What is the benefit for us?

Some may say that the EU is good for exports, perhaps but Sweden's export haven't really changed s
ince we became a member of the EU. Our biggest export partners are Denmark, Norway, Finland, GB,
Germany and the USA. So that's 33% that are not even EU members and the I am pretty sure that we
would export to the other 4 countries as well regardless of the EU

Another thing is the free movement of people, goods and services within the EU.
That means that i.e. Polish construction companies can put in offers for the Swedish market,
However due to the differences in salaries between a worker employed by a Swedish construction company
average monthly salary is approx SEK25'000( €2950/ $3950) how much does an employee in a
Polish construction company earn per month (in avergae)?

The same goes for the transportation business. Independent truck/semi-trailer owners from eastern Europe
can now (quite successfully) compete for transportation in Sweden resulting in that ity's getting harder for Swedish truckers
and transportation companies to compete since the have higher costs.

EU is a corrupted hobby project by French, Belgian and German politicians.
A project by politicians for the gain of fortune and power to themselves.
The people of Europe are the victims but the politicians obviously does not give a sh**t.

EU is a cancer and have to go.

Wasted Talent

15th February 2013, 17:31

With the one hand the EU funds anti-smoking campaigns due to obvious health effects and ....

on the other hands subsidises tobacco growers in Bulgaria, Poland and Greece.

MEPs plan tobacco subsidies as Brussels fights smoking - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/9844395/MEPs-plan-tobacco-subsidies-as-Brussels-fights-smoking.html)

Good to know that they are careful and consistent with everybodies money

WT

A FONDO

15th February 2013, 22:47

The whole system of EU subsidies is very inefective. Instead of managing its own budget, countries pay hundreds of millions to EU every year, then EU returns them some of the money for things chosen by EU, no matter if a country actually needs that much money for this or there's something more important that needs less money. Northwest countries have plenty of money and can cover it (even though it's still ineffective), but in the southeast this actually harms their development. Things must be radically changed, and shortly. USSR fizzled out, EU seems it goes on the same rails.

ioan

17th February 2013, 01:08

ioan

17th February 2013, 01:13

Well if us in the northern Europe pulls out, then who is going to pay for them countries in southern Europe?

Well, just go ... Enough menacing, show us some facts, take your toys and go.

ioan

17th February 2013, 01:15

Question for Malbec. If the majority of the UK is against being a member of the EU then should we withdraw. What is so wrong with democracy that a nations wishes should be ignored?

No one says you have to stay if you don't want to. Heck most EU countries would be happy to see UK go and leave the others do the job they want to do. The issue is there is no way to throw you out, so we are all waiting for your referendum and to see you finally leave.

Knock-on

17th February 2013, 10:34

I really don't think you understand the issue at all ioan.

The People of Northern Europe express similar worries as the English. Even their politicians are wondering if the EU has over reached its remit and needs to be more focused on being a trade platform.

This is really what the concern is about. Can we bring the EU back towards its core principles or if its going to plunge towards this unaccountable overlord, do we want to be a part or not.

Malbec

17th February 2013, 14:54

As I said before, Sweden and the other North European countries are the biggest netto payers in the union.
That means that we put way more money into the European Union that we receive from it.

Could you explain where the money is going then? If it does not come back to us where does it go?
Perhaps Spain? Portugal? Greece? And the money the EU have put into these countries as a result of the euro crisis?
So why should we up here continue to to put all this money into the EU? What is the benefit for us?

Poor parts of Sweden and areas affected by the decline of industries caused by the EU free trade area will benefit. In Britain South Wales, parts of Scotland, NI and the North East of England have received significant investment from the EU.

The benefit? As poorer areas of the EU develop they'll consume more of the goods and services produced by wealthier parts. Increased trade is difficult to measure unlike annual EU payments but the benefit is there.

Some may say that the EU is good for exports, perhaps but Sweden's export haven't really changed s
ince we became a member of the EU. Our biggest export partners are Denmark, Norway, Finland, GB,
Germany and the USA. So that's 33% that are not even EU members and the I am pretty sure that we
would export to the other 4 countries as well regardless of the EU

All of which would suggest a failure by Swedish industry to exploit the opportunities membership of the EU gives it rather than any failure of the EU itself.

Another thing is the free movement of people, goods and services within the EU.
That means that i.e. Polish construction companies can put in offers for the Swedish market,
However due to the differences in salaries between a worker employed by a Swedish construction company
average monthly salary is approx SEK25'000( €2950/ $3950) how much does an employee in a
Polish construction company earn per month (in avergae)?

The same goes for the transportation business. Independent truck/semi-trailer owners from eastern Europe
can now (quite successfully) compete for transportation in Sweden resulting in that ity's getting harder for Swedish truckers
and transportation companies to compete since the have higher costs.

Scared of the big bad wolf that is free trade?

Think you deserve more pay for less work purely because you happen to be of a certain nationality?

The joke here (in the UK) is that 'right wing' media like the Mail and Telegraph portray the EU as a left leaning socialist type structure whereas the economic policies executed by the EU are profoundly right wing pro-free trade/globalisation.

Isolationalist economies like the one you wish Sweden to be might be good in the short term for workers where the lack of migration results in a limited labour pool, allowing unions to demand more pay for less work time after time. However this is devastating for productivity and damages the economy in the long term.

It may have escaped your attention but Europe in general is no longer (together with the US) the centre of economic activity on this planet. We are competing directly with countries like the US, China, India and Brazil. All our competitors have access to skilled cheap labour. The US has fairly liberal legal immigration rules and often turns a blind eye to illegal migration knowing what a boost this is to their economy. The Chinese allow internal migration from the poor interior to the rich industrialised coastlands so their factories have a steady supply of cheap labour. India and Brazil have a large pool of poor everywhere which they can tap.

Most countries in Europe have nothing like this, and we are all generally against migration especially from outside Europe. We also have a large social welfare system that is an additional economic burden (the financial burden is a separate issue to the morals of supporting the disadvantaged). That puts us at an inherent disadvantage. The one thing we do have is a massive difference in both income and labour demand across the EU, where we have jobs in the North and West and a skilled but underutilised and cheap labour force in the South and East. Free migration within the EU allows the excess of one to meet the demands of the other improving productivity and competitiveness.

If this results in people like you having to work hard for less pay to compete with Polish or Romanian migrants then tough. No one is owed anything in this globalised economy, you are not entitled to anything. The alternative is short term protectionism leading to a steady but definite decline. Its a tough world out there and individual European states can no longer survive economically on their own outside a bloc. The US has 300 million people, India 1.6 billion, China 1.3 billion. How are countries like Britain with a population of 60 million going to negotiate free trade agreements with countries like that on their own? Together we form the world's largest economy by far with 500 million people, that is where our strength lies.

Malbec

17th February 2013, 15:10

No one says you have to stay if you don't want to. Heck most EU countries would be happy to see UK go and leave the others do the job they want to do. The issue is there is no way to throw you out, so we are all waiting for your referendum and to see you finally leave.

As Knock-On says you clearly don't understand the issue at all.

We in the UK are SPECIAL. We are VERY IMPORTANT. We had an Empire that spanned the globe don't you know? Just because all we own now are some islands off Argentina doesn't mean we are any less important than we used to be.

We are entitled to better than being treated as mere equals by the biggest economic bloc in the world. They should be paying us to join their silly European club, not the other way around. After all think about the social cache having us as members brings them.

Sheesh. ;)

donKey jote

17th February 2013, 19:04

Poor parts of Sweden and areas affected by the decline of industries caused by the EU free trade area will benefit. In Britain South Wales, parts of Scotland, NI and the North East of England have received significant investment from the EU.

The benefit? As poorer areas of the EU develop they'll consume more of the goods and services produced by wealthier parts. Increased trade is difficult to measure unlike annual EU payments but the benefit is there.

All of which would suggest a failure by Swedish industry to exploit the opportunities membership of the EU gives it rather than any failure of the EU itself.

Scared of the big bad wolf that is free trade?

Think you deserve more pay for less work purely because you happen to be of a certain nationality?

The joke here (in the UK) is that 'right wing' media like the Mail and Telegraph portray the EU as a left leaning socialist type structure whereas the economic policies executed by the EU are profoundly right wing pro-free trade/globalisation.

Isolationalist economies like the one you wish Sweden to be might be good in the short term for workers where the lack of migration results in a limited labour pool, allowing unions to demand more pay for less work time after time. However this is devastating for productivity and damages the economy in the long term.

It may have escaped your attention but Europe in general is no longer (together with the US) the centre of economic activity on this planet. We are competing directly with countries like the US, China, India and Brazil. All our competitors have access to skilled cheap labour. The US has fairly liberal legal immigration rules and often turns a blind eye to illegal migration knowing what a boost this is to their economy. The Chinese allow internal migration from the poor interior to the rich industrialised coastlands so their factories have a steady supply of cheap labour. India and Brazil have a large pool of poor everywhere which they can tap.

Most countries in Europe have nothing like this, and we are all generally against migration especially from outside Europe. We also have a large social welfare system that is an additional economic burden (the financial burden is a separate issue to the morals of supporting the disadvantaged). That puts us at an inherent disadvantage. The one thing we do have is a massive difference in both income and labour demand across the EU, where we have jobs in the North and West and a skilled but underutilised and cheap labour force in the South and East. Free migration within the EU allows the excess of one to meet the demands of the other improving productivity and competitiveness.

If this results in people like you having to work hard for less pay to compete with Polish or Romanian migrants then tough. No one is owed anything in this globalised economy, you are not entitled to anything. The alternative is short term protectionism leading to a steady but definite decline. Its a tough world out there and individual European states can no longer survive economically on their own outside a bloc. The US has 300 million people, India 1.6 billion, China 1.3 billion. How are countries like Britain with a population of 60 million going to negotiate free trade agreements with countries like that on their own? Together we form the world's largest economy by far with 500 million people, that is where our strength lies.

Excellent post malbec

"Scared of the big bad wolf that is free trade?
Think you deserve more pay for less work purely because you happen to be of a certain nationality?"
->
"If this results in people like you having to work hard for less pay to compete with Polish or Romanian migrants then tough. No one is owed anything in this globalised economy, you are not entitled to anything. The alternative is short term protectionism leading to a steady but definite decline."

That's the reality of capitalism.
As is the reality of local ( ;) ) national politicians playing the "furriner taking our jobs" card, or the "unaccountable unelected furriner dictating what we are allowed to do" card for their short term reelection goals.

gadjo_dilo

18th February 2013, 12:09

no its not.
Hey, no offence. I don’t think you’re arrogant. I’ve said that just because – as a certain forumer very well noticed-
I have a really bad persecution complex and tend to think that me and my conationals are perceived as a sort of second league european citizens. :laugh:

What country do you live in and how much does your country pay/get from EU each year? .
If you have 2 seconds to look at my sig you’ll find out.
I’m not sure about the figures but I think we pay something like 1,2 bil.E/year and get probably a bit more than twice that amount. But to my knowledge we don’t use them 100%.

Could you explain where the money is going then? If it does not come back to us where does it go?
Perhaps Spain? Portugal? Greece? And the money the EU have put into these countries as a result of the euro crisis?
So why should we up here continue to to put all this money into the EU? What is the benefit for us?
Maybe because if EU doesn’t put those money into these countries your benefit will be even less than it’s now.

Some may say that the EU is good for exports, perhaps but Sweden's export haven't really changed s
ince we became a member of the EU. Our biggest export partners are Denmark, Norway, Finland, GB,
Germany and the USA. So that's 33% that are not even EU members and the I am pretty sure that we
would export to the other 4 countries as well regardless of the EU

Another thing is the free movement of people, goods and services within the EU.
That means that i.e. Polish construction companies can put in offers for the Swedish market,
However due to the differences in salaries between a worker employed by a Swedish construction company
average monthly salary is approx SEK25'000( €2950/ $3950) how much does an employee in a
Polish construction company earn per month (in avergae)?

The same goes for the transportation business. Independent truck/semi-trailer owners from eastern Europe
can now (quite successfully) compete for transportation in Sweden resulting in that ity's getting harder for Swedish truckers
and transportation companies to compete since the have higher costs.

EU is a corrupted hobby project by French, Belgian and German politicians.
A project by politicians for the gain of fortune and power to themselves.
The people of Europe are the victims but the politicians obviously does not give a sh**t.
.
Well, I think Mr. Malbec has a good comment on this one and as I used to be critcised for not being able to produce something of substance on serious issues I shall not say more. :p
EU is not a perfect structure but at this moment I still think it’s the only solution for our states although it’s not easy for any of us. Probably it’s hard for your swedish conationals to accept competition from East. I could feel as frustraded seeing that the swede construction worker gets three times my salary although I have universitary studies and a job that assures me a good social position. And I also could legitimatelly ask who will work here if all our specialists will go at work abroad.

Last but not least, if you have a sense of humour you could take the „opportunity” to work in my country as we launched a funny and smart campaign as an answer to the arrogant „Don’t come to Britain – it’s full"
Details on my sig. :laugh: