Swiss and norway have been mentioned are they in or out
If out how do they trade and survive
Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU but are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) which simplistically means that they have trading agreements with the EU but not the political stuff unless they choose to adopt it.
The reason we produce less food is because we can't make a lot of it as cheaply as we can buy it. It isn't the common market although it's easy to blame it.
Actually we were once able to make food relatively cheaply.
CAP rules meant that we had to price products artificially high which in turn hit both our domestic and export markets.
Other EU countries received generous CAP subsidies (from our net contributions!) which enabled them to be more competitive than us.
This is obviously a simplified version on a football forum rather than a definitive academic treatise on the subject but, in essence, that is a potted history.
So all members of the EU pay 80 mil per day just to be part of the EU
It goes to an EU bank account that just gathers interest
Not all members pay as I said above. Approx 20 of the 27 countries receive. We pay along with Germany, Holland and others which vary depending on how well they are doing. France for example is sometimes a net contributor but has also been a net recipient.
You read the Murdoch press I take it. Nobody seems to question why this man is so anti Europe. If they did, they may think the potential of the regulatory authorities in Brussels, particularly the anti-competition authorities, to hamper the growth of his media empire might be a big factor.
He is clearly the major player in the UK market, with both press and broadcasting control, his holdings on the continent are considerably more modest.
Murdoch the puppet master is going to be busy pulling our strings in the coming years. I'll end by quoting a not great European, Adolph Hitler "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed". Too bent bananas anybody?
If this does ever go the vote though, many will not vote on whether its financially best for the country, but on their 'jingoistic' views.
I wouldn't know what to vote, but as outlined at the start of the thread, you cannot do it until people are educated about the pros and cons because its so important. And as many wouldn't want to be educated (my guess because there is a celebrity programme/ X Factor on) then why have a vote in the first place?
Swiss and norway have been mentioned are they in or out
If out how do they trade and survive
Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU but are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) which simplistically means that they have trading agreements with the EU but not the political stuff unless they choose to adopt it.
Swiss and norway have been mentioned are they in or out
If out how do they trade and survive
Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU but are members of the European Economic Area (EEA) which simplistically means that they have trading agreements with the EU but not the political stuff unless they choose to adopt it.
Sorry Len, Switzerland are not in the EEA
My mistake.
Switzerland are members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
If this does ever go the vote though, many will not vote on whether its financially best for the country, but on their 'jingoistic' views.
I wouldn't know what to vote, but as outlined at the start of the thread, you cannot do it until people are educated about the pros and cons because its so important. And as many wouldn't want to be educated (my guess because there is a celebrity programme/ X Factor on) then why have a vote in the first place?
What is there to be educated about though? The EU is political union who sets out its own policies and wants to create a federal state of Europe and its own currency. It's entirely up to you whether you want to agree with it or not but previous evidence shows their more cons than pros.
Lord Snooty is, like all our current crop of professional politocos, feathering his own nest or more accurately, protecting his nest from UKIP at the next election.
By 2017 the EU will probably have imploded under a mountain of debt and inflation or effectively be "greater Germany" as their taxpayers prop up the whole Euro house of cards. There won't be any need for a referendum.
The EU is a nice club for the usual cronies while Europe can afford it but will soon disintegrate when house prices half (Spain), there is mass unemployment (Italy, Spain, Greece), rioting on the streets (Greece) and you can't get basic medicines (Greece). Imagine the French response when it happens there.
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Euro" to paraphrase that European integration enthusiast with the dodgy moustache.
I can well understand your confusion, and desire to get some straight answers.Me too. Just be aware that Len and Disco have firm eurosceptic views, and you need to hear the other side before taking anything they say as fact. See the discussion with Len about the postal service, above., and I'm coming back to him on that.There are several EU websites which tell you how the whole thing works, and which try to balance out the Murdoch/Daily Mail driven propaganda. You know, straight bananas and all that shit.
I just wish we could have a referendum tomorrow to stop the bulgarians coming in.
Even if we could. It does not leave enough time legally, to unwind all the things in place.
The Bulgarians aren't interested. And if you have not seen Bulgarian women, you may have cause to regret that :-)
Bigger problem is Romania.
But again, it is within our own government's remit to deal with the problem by changing the criteria for getting benefits. The EU doesn't prevent them from doing so.
The EU would prevent us treating Romanians differently for benefits than anybody else.
Single Market and all that. The same principle which prevents us from charging foreign lorry drivers road tolls etc despite our own hauliers being clobbered on the continent.
In essence the EU states that everyone has to be treated the same.
Sorry Len, you haven't nailed that one.
The propagandists tell us that we will be swamped by Romanians and Bulgarians, and that the reason is that they are all scroungers and they can get their hands on benefits much more easily than in e.g. Germany. It therefore follows that the way we provide benefits is different to the way Germany does it. So there is no EU directive on "benefits" which makes 'everything the same". If there was, why would all these Bulgarians and Romanians choose the UK rather than Germany? Both employment levels and the weather are worse here.
You are right that we cannot discriminate on benefits by nationality. There is nothing to stop us tightening the basis on which anyone gets benefits. The government introduced major changes just a couple of weeks ago. It's a sovereign national debate.
Its another example of how when people lose the national debate with the UK voting public, they blame the EU, when in fact, they just didn't persuade the UK public.
I just wish we could have a referendum tomorrow to stop the bulgarians coming in.
Even if we could. It does not leave enough time legally, to unwind all the things in place.
The Bulgarians aren't interested. And if you have not seen Bulgarian women, you may have cause to regret that :-)
Bigger problem is Romania.
But again, it is within our own government's remit to deal with the problem by changing the criteria for getting benefits. The EU doesn't prevent them from doing so.
The EU would prevent us treating Romanians differently for benefits than anybody else.
Single Market and all that. The same principle which prevents us from charging foreign lorry drivers road tolls etc despite our own hauliers being clobbered on the continent.
In essence the EU states that everyone has to be treated the same.
Sorry Len, you haven't nailed that one.
The propagandists tell us that we will be swamped by Romanians and Bulgarians, and that the reason is that they are all scroungers and they can get their hands on benefits much more easily than in e.g. Germany. It therefore follows that the way we provide benefits is different to the way Germany does it. So there is no EU directive on "benefits" which makes 'everything the same". If there was, why would all these Bulgarians and Romanians choose the UK rather than Germany? Both employment levels and the weather are worse here.
You are right that we cannot discriminate on benefits by nationality. There is nothing to stop us tightening the basis on which anyone gets benefits. The government introduced major changes just a couple of weeks ago. It's a sovereign national debate.
Its another example of how when people lose the national debate with the UK voting public, they blame the EU, when in fact, they just didn't persuade the UK public.
The highlighted sentence is the crux Prague. You have confirmed agreement with what I said.
I ask again AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE should an elected UK government or an unelected Commission in a foreign country be making decisions as to how the UK distributes benefits or charges people to use its roads?
There are moral reasons why we may well not want to discriminate on grounds of nationality or ethnicity in certain areas which we can all understand but that decision should be made by an elected UK government and, as you acknowledge, it cannot!
Yes you are right, looking purely in a vacuum again, that there is no express command that from the EU that prevents us from not giving benefits to Romanians and Bulgarians but if we don't then we can't give them to our own either! So, for practical purposes, if not theoretical, the EU DOES dictate our policy just as it did with Post Offices as I tried to show above.
I am not very articulate so have probably not made myself clear. I am the Scott Wagstaff of articulation (is there such a word?). Run around a lot but regarded as useless on the Post post thread!
One more thing. It's academic since we are presently in the EU but if we were not we would have the right to choose whetheror not to allow the Romanians and Bulgarians into our country. As EU members we do not have that choice. At best we can, as we did, merely delay the date of entry.
The principal reason that the US and other non-European countries want the UK to remain in the EU is not for our benefit but because they look upon the UK as providing the only force for economic reform (and diplomatic support) in the EU, making it a more amenable partner.
The principal reason that the US and other non-European countries want the UK to remain in the EU is not for our benefit but because they look upon the UK as providing the only force for economic reform (and diplomatic support) in the EU, making it a more amenable partner.
Is the correct answer, if we go or lose our influence they will simply find someone else to do their bidding for them and Britain will be left without one of its biggest bargaining chips in the 'special relationship'.
That's a big, big risk to take, without any clout in the EU what exactly will be Britain's role on the global stage?
We would probably be left like Australia as a middling power which is ignored for most of the time as it carries no real weight or influence.
If this does ever go the vote though, many will not vote on whether its financially best for the country, but on their 'jingoistic' views.
I wouldn't know what to vote, but as outlined at the start of the thread, you cannot do it until people are educated about the pros and cons because its so important. And as many wouldn't want to be educated (my guess because there is a celebrity programme/ X Factor on) then why have a vote in the first place?
. And who decides when these people are 'educated' these are the same people that vote governments in and out. Shouldn't have gone in in the first place......we knew we were giving our country away, even back then. Let's get out before it's tooooo late.
A vote in the UN security Council, their 6th biggest trading partner, a well-trained military and intelligence force.
There are good reasons for staying in the EU but pleasing the Americans isn't one of them.
They are reasonable points but I think you are seriously under-estimating how much the Americans value the UK's ability to 'handle' Europe for them and the clout this gives the UK in Washington.
As much as the French pretend to hate the Americans they would swap places in a heartbeat.
The world is now a very small place. The real players are the huge economic blocks that are now starting to consolidate over and above the traditional US and Europe. China, India, brazil and at some point in the future a trading block of south east Asia will dominate global markets. Each trading block will do exactly what it needs to protect its member nations or national interest. If the UK thinks that the EU will allow us to walk away or cherry pick the bits we want from the existing treaty without the remaining nations fiercely protecting themselves I fear it is very much mistaken. The UK exists by trade and to isolate ourselves and think we can compete with those monolithic trading blocks on a level playing field is just lunacy. We are not Switzerland that exports cuckoo clocks and stores the ill gotten gains of the world under its pavements in order to survive. We need to trade and be at the centre of trade and to do that we must remain in the EU for all the good and bad.
you will see that "The free movement of persons also covers social security issues by establishing a system of coordination between the EFTA States. The objective is to apply common principles and rules so that differences in national legislation do not hinder the mobility of persons who move within the EFTA area. Additionally, the mutual recognition of professional diplomas has been introduced under the EFTA Convention, which further facilitates the free movement of persons." And the democratic accountablity you rightly crave would be even worse as we would have less access to the EU institutions where the regulations are made. Everyone is making the false assumption that EFTA countries have access to an anything goes free market - they don't. And I somehow doubt that Cameron will be able to renegotiate the EFTA agreement.
Cant see how we would really survive outside EU but all the "right on EU is God" --where were you on the single currency ? gobbing off how we would all be dead and starving if we didnt sign up---Little Englanders blah blah blah----------------how WRONG you all were and how quiet on that subject you are now.
Give us a vote -----win the vote to stay in and its all over.
As for the French saying they would get the red carpet out if we left -----do F++K off who will make up our money input Bulgaria or Rumania ? Greece ? Spain? Italy? Ireland -----------dont make me laugh
and you can take back Labours 5 million new comers. which didnt happen--- so dont give me the billybigBollox how England will die if they werent here. it was all a Daily Mail racist scare story and only 6,000 were coming------bring on your next bullshit
Comments
CAP rules meant that we had to price products artificially high which in turn hit both our domestic and export markets.
Other EU countries received generous CAP subsidies (from our net contributions!) which enabled them to be more competitive than us.
This is obviously a simplified version on a football forum rather than a definitive academic treatise on the subject but, in essence, that is a potted history.
He is clearly the major player in the UK market, with both press and broadcasting control, his holdings on the continent are considerably more modest.
Murdoch the puppet master is going to be busy pulling our strings in the coming years. I'll end by quoting a not great European, Adolph Hitler "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed". Too bent bananas anybody?
I wouldn't know what to vote, but as outlined at the start of the thread, you cannot do it until people are educated about the pros and cons because its so important. And as many wouldn't want to be educated (my guess because there is a celebrity programme/ X Factor on) then why have a vote in the first place?
Switzerland are members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
Lord Snooty is, like all our current crop of professional politocos, feathering his own nest or more accurately, protecting his nest from UKIP at the next election.
By 2017 the EU will probably have imploded under a mountain of debt and inflation or effectively be "greater Germany" as their taxpayers prop up the whole Euro house of cards. There won't be any need for a referendum.
The EU is a nice club for the usual cronies while Europe can afford it but will soon disintegrate when house prices half (Spain), there is mass unemployment (Italy, Spain, Greece), rioting on the streets (Greece) and you can't get basic medicines (Greece). Imagine the French response when it happens there.
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Euro" to paraphrase that European integration enthusiast with the dodgy moustache.
We do not!
I can well understand your confusion, and desire to get some straight answers.Me too. Just be aware that Len and Disco have firm eurosceptic views, and you need to hear the other side before taking anything they say as fact. See the discussion with Len about the postal service, above., and I'm coming back to him on that.There are several EU websites which tell you how the whole thing works, and which try to balance out the Murdoch/Daily Mail driven propaganda. You know, straight bananas and all that shit.
Try this one for starters.
The propagandists tell us that we will be swamped by Romanians and Bulgarians, and that the reason is that they are all scroungers and they can get their hands on benefits much more easily than in e.g. Germany. It therefore follows that the way we provide benefits is different to the way Germany does it. So there is no EU directive on "benefits" which makes 'everything the same". If there was, why would all these Bulgarians and Romanians choose the UK rather than Germany? Both employment levels and the weather are worse here.
You are right that we cannot discriminate on benefits by nationality. There is nothing to stop us tightening the basis on which anyone gets benefits. The government introduced major changes just a couple of weeks ago. It's a sovereign national debate.
Its another example of how when people lose the national debate with the UK voting public, they blame the EU, when in fact, they just didn't persuade the UK public.
I ask again AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE should an elected UK government or an unelected Commission in a foreign country be making decisions as to how the UK distributes benefits or charges people to use its roads?
There are moral reasons why we may well not want to discriminate on grounds of nationality or ethnicity in certain areas which we can all understand but that decision should be made by an elected UK government and, as you acknowledge, it cannot!
Yes you are right, looking purely in a vacuum again, that there is no express command that from the EU that prevents us from not giving benefits to Romanians and Bulgarians but if we don't then we can't give them to our own either! So, for practical purposes, if not theoretical, the EU DOES dictate our policy just as it did with Post Offices as I tried to show above.
I am not very articulate so have probably not made myself clear. I am the Scott Wagstaff of articulation (is there such a word?). Run around a lot but regarded as useless on the Post post thread!
One more thing. It's academic since we are presently in the EU but if we were not we would have the right to choose whetheror not to allow the Romanians and Bulgarians into our country. As EU members we do not have that choice. At best we can, as we did, merely delay the date of entry.
That's a big, big risk to take, without any clout in the EU what exactly will be Britain's role on the global stage?
We would probably be left like Australia as a middling power which is ignored for most of the time as it carries no real weight or influence.
Shouldn't have gone in in the first place......we knew we were giving our country away, even back then. Let's get out before it's tooooo late.
At the moment we are the 'bridge' between the US and Europe, if we take the bridge down the Yanks will build another one to Berlin/Paris.
As the old US State Department saying goes, "We have no permanent friends, only permanent interests."
There are good reasons for staying in the EU but pleasing the Americans isn't one of them.
As much as the French pretend to hate the Americans they would swap places in a heartbeat.
you will see that "The free movement of persons also covers social security issues by establishing a system of coordination between the EFTA States. The objective is to apply common principles and rules so that differences in national legislation do not hinder the mobility of persons who move within the EFTA area. Additionally, the mutual recognition of professional diplomas has been introduced under the EFTA Convention, which further facilitates the free movement of persons." And the democratic accountablity you rightly crave would be even worse as we would have less access to the EU institutions where the regulations are made. Everyone is making the false assumption that EFTA countries have access to an anything goes free market - they don't. And I somehow doubt that Cameron will be able to renegotiate the EFTA agreement.
Give us a vote -----win the vote to stay in and its all over.
As for the French saying they would get the red carpet out if we left -----do F++K off who will make up our money input Bulgaria or Rumania ? Greece ? Spain? Italy? Ireland -----------dont make me laugh
and you can take back Labours 5 million new comers. which didnt happen--- so dont give me the billybigBollox how England will die if they werent here. it was all a Daily Mail racist scare story and only 6,000 were coming------bring on your next bullshit
Part of Europe yes ----European no.