You are European whether you like it or not by definition of the atlas. As for the single currency well that's too big a topic for here and now but the "wonderful" pound sterling is doing worse on the markets than either the euro or the dollar and has been for a number of years. The pound is so closely allied to the euro that we even subscribe to the bail out fund. If the eventual vote is for out do you really think that our current partners will do us any favours as we walk away ?
Lets get one thing straight we never had a referendum to join ..Ted Heath took us in and we actualy had a referendum to stay or leave.I think most voters thought its taken us so fu--ing long to join we will stay I actualy voted to leave but over the years have changed my mind. I think one of the problems we will have is getting a ballanced discussion as most newspapers are owned by anti europe owners and nobody now believes any politician.
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.
I don't think I've commented on the wisdom or otherwise of joining EFTA but that said it is certainly a realistic alternative so you make a valid point.
I must confess to not being aware of the freedom of movement rules within EFTA so thanks for pointing them out.
My initial thought is that we would be better off only being compelled to let people in from 4 different countries if we join EFTA rather than the 26 we presently do or (to be more accurate) shortly will. If, as is strongly mooted, Turkey shortly joins the EU we face the possibility of yet more potential immigrants we cannot restrict.
I suspect that a realistic estimate of numbers of potential immigrants and possible social security requirements is easier to quantify from the 4 EFTA countries than the other 26 EU countries.
PA this is what I am trying to establish just straight answers with no bias
My concerns about this whole thing is
So far all I have been told is that we pay roughly 80million a day to be part of it
No one can tell me what this money goes to or where
That there are EU members that contribute and some that seem to just receive
Why is this and how is it determined
I don't buy the trade argument and that is solely based on one simple theory
As a country I would expect us to import far more than we export and therefore if I wish to purchase something I am more likely to do so as a business with someone or some group of people who I can go into a partnership with so I buy of you, help me sell to him etc , you get my drift
I am sure as hell certain that based on the fact I am buying from you that you wouldn't be silly enough to stop the relationship based on the fact We pulled out of the EU after a referendum because ultimately it would affect you just as bad, and in a global market with very cheap imports and transportation costs from china etc I could well go else where
I also do not like and have witnessed for myself the restrictive and annoying legislation on work hrs that have impacted or caused me to break the law in order to supplement my income as I don't think they are fair
I have witnessed the fishing trade in this country go down hill and spoke at great lengths to good English people who feel strangulated whilst other countries come into our shores un opposed
I want to be sold on how good this 80 mil deal is for us if you could explain any of the points I raised it would be much appreciated
In the meantime the economy is going to suffer 5 years of uncertainty just because Cameron wants to try and appease his own party - rather than try and offer it some leadership.
If only Cameron would act in the best interests of Britain - instead of pandering to the vested interests of himself and his mates in the Conservative party.
After 40 years of politically being part of Europe, I really can't see us again sitting alone on our little islands.
NLA, I always thought there was an op-out option for the working time directive whereby workers can work more if they agree to it.
You are correct that as a country imports exceed exports. But what about our exports? There are a number of multinationals based here for example car manufacturers who produce cars here mainly to be sold in mainland Europe. If we were to leave the EU there is a real possibility they would leave our country.
From a few articles I've read by economists many say that if we were to leave the EU there would be a few short term benefits such as no tariffs to pay and food prices falling. But long term there would be real uncertainty. Speaking of farming here, I'm fairly sure our own farmers would struggle without the huge subsidies the EU give them.
I completely agree with you that it is a very confusing area and it seems no one expert has a definitive answer as to what would happen. For most Britons, it is so easy for headline writers to run with a story that moans about how much we pay towards the EU or how many regulations there are. But it's not until people do the digging on their own that they can find out the true story
The other problem is that the uncertainty this announcement has caused cannot be good for our companies that rely on Europe. If this was a move by Cameron to wrongfoot opponents, he would have waited until 2015 in the lead up to the next election. Now there is a wait in excess of 4 years! The reason he has announced it now, is to placate the Euro sceptics in his own party. If anybody needs proof the Tories put their party before the country - this is it!
But NLA, as a worker, you can opt out of the 48hour a week limit of the working time directive. The whole point of it is to prevent employers from forcing you to work longer than that if you don't want to, and make sure that you get sufficient rest breaks between shifts so that you're not a danger to yourself and others.
Kent, this is a democratic vote 5 years in the future and in the meantime our relationship with the rest of Europe could be damaged to the point where we are forced out anyway.
Speaking of farming here, I'm fairly sure our own farmers would struggle without the huge subsidies the EU give them.
I've heard this point made in a few media articles but just can't see the logic. We are net contributors to the budget, it's not the EU's money that is going to the farmers unless we are net beneficiaries. Just because we send it to the EU, they take their cut and happen to be the ones that give some out to British farmers doesn't make it EU money.
Only the right can ridiculously simplify the argument.
Have to disagree with you on that Muttley, both left and right do that. One of the reasons I'm sceptical about any EU referendum is the whole experience of the AV referendum. The NO camp completely invented the costs associated with switching to AV (and Blunkett admitted as much once it was all over), while the YES camp overstated the possible benefits. I can see the EU referendum going in a very similar way. It's very difficult for us to make an informed choice if no-one's giving us the facts of what it costs, and what benefits we get out of it, and what we'll gain and what we'll lose out on if we leave, in an unbiased way.
Only the right can ridiculously simplify the argument.
Who says I'm on the right? Stop supporting "your party" like a football team. That's the real basic problem with politics today.
Are you on the left then?
i have views that would count as right and left, I vote for whichever party/candidate best represents my views. But it is usually the left that are scared witless of any kind of input by the voter. Gordon Brown didnt exactly jump to call an election when he was appointed prime minister did he? Only because he knew his party wouldnt win, that, for me is incredible dangerous. Call an election when its due or when you feel you may not have a mandate to govern anymore, which i dont think brown had for a long time tbh
The AV referendum was a joke as you had to chose between one unfair system or another new one. When parties look at introducing a system, the first thing they do is see how it affects them. You either accept the system we have or you have true proportional representation. I favour the latter because it is truly democratic and means everybody has a voice- but the major parties - Tories and Labour don't because it could damage their hold on politics. I refused to vote on AV as I wasn't given a proper choice, between true democracy or fake democracy.
But people can't be so stupid as to think that Cameron has announced this because he wants a democratic vote. It is to placate a powerful lobby within his party. He should be focusing on getting the country straight, not pandering to his party's insecurities. It is scandalous but he seems to have gotten away with it.
And Kent - I have views that could be considered right and left too - I feel I am to the right on law on order but my view of the standing of a nation is how it treats those at the bottom. Not how rich those at the top are. My comments are consistent with those principles, not alligned to a party.
Only the right can ridiculously simplify the argument.
Who says I'm on the right? Stop supporting "your party" like a football team. That's the real basic problem with politics today.
Are you on the left then?
i have views that would count as right and left, I vote for whichever party/candidate best represents my views. But it is usually the left that are scared witless of any kind of input by the voter. Gordon Brown didnt exactly jump to call an election when he was appointed prime minister did he? Only because he knew his party wouldnt win, that, for me is incredible dangerous. Call an election when its due or when you feel you may not have a mandate to govern anymore, which i dont think brown had for a long time tbh
I agree that there should be fixed parliamentary terms, I don't like politicians being able to manipulate events to call 'snap' elections whenever they feel the winds are with them.
With regards to Brown, had he held the election on taking over just after the foot and mouth crisis he probably would have emerged as the largest party although short of a majority and been able to strike a Coalition deal with the LD's, as it was he bottled it (due to his innate caution and ridiculous paranoia) and never recovered the lost ground.
Hard to say he did not have a mandate to govern, we don't elect Prime Ministers in the UK, we elect MP's of political parties and even by May 2010 Labour still had a comfortable majority in the commons.
Government's don't lose a 'mandate' to govern just because they are unpopular, if they did then we'd never stop holding elections.
NLA Mate you are asking me to be the pro - Europe counterpart on here to Len and the fanatics (Len, note- I dont think you are a fanatic, but most of UKIP clearly are. They remind me of the Socialist Workers). I'm not up to the job. My advice is, don't believe 'facts and figures' like the alleged 80 million/day, without double checking from another source. Generally the Europa website is worth your time, because it is basically the EU putting its own side of the story - which the majority of newspapers at least are not interested in doing.
I'll tell you briefly why I will vote to stay in. The EU has helped to bring peace and prosperity to a continent that saw our forefathers killed by the million, and where we wasted billions on the Cold War. Its obvious to me that our business and economy would suffer enormously if we are out. Not only will Toyota, Nissan and Honda pack up and leave the UK, but Tesco especially and M&S to give just two examples are doing very well in Central Europe and will find their business very uncompetitive if they are outside the EU. I think there's a lot wrong with the EU. Fisheries, and the Common Agriculture Policy, and the amount of red tape. But Brits forget that lots of people especially in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, agree. But they want to change it from within, and they are getting increasingly fed up with the frankly childish approach the British take to trying to change these policies. And finally like I say, Europe is blamed for a lot of shit that is entirely in our own hands to fix.
Brown was a neurotic git - Blair was a smooth talking social democrat. Ed Milliband is the least respected thanks to the press, but is the most ideological leader Labour have had since foot.
I honestly struggle to work out where I stand on the whole EU debate, and the lack of any kind of sensible, balanced and rational debate in Britain or as far as I can work out elsewhere in Europe makes it even harder to work out.
Cameron is raising the right questions in the wrong way for the wrong reasons but in a way I'm quite glad he is. I don't wan't the debate to be framed by a struggling Prime Minister trying to win the next election but no questions asked Europhiles have to realise what the end game is as well.
When Angela Merkel addressed the European Parliment a few months back the British press reported almost exclusively on her comments regarding a potential British exit, but for me the key quote was her saying 'Of course the European Commission will one day become a government, the EU council a second chamber and the European Parliament will have more powers'
This is the federal plan and it is a reality. The question is do you trust the European institutions enough to implement good policy and if they don't will you as a citizen of Europe have enough reach to remove them. British Democracy and politicians are far from perfect but the safeguard is that they can be given a good kicking in the polls and removed every five years. I fear that in a fedarlised European system the lack of a true European Demos will leave a powerful elite virtually untouchable to rule as they see fit.
It's all very well talking about regional trading blocs exerting power but a simple trading bloc is not on offer for European citizens.
Speaking of farming here, I'm fairly sure our own farmers would struggle without the huge subsidies the EU give them.
I've heard this point made in a few media articles but just can't see the logic. We are net contributors to the budget, it's not the EU's money that is going to the farmers unless we are net beneficiaries. Just because we send it to the EU, they take their cut and happen to be the ones that give some out to British farmers doesn't make it EU money.
But from what I understand is that the farming subsidy is one of the areas we benefit from. Estimates I've seen show that British farmers receive £3bn a year. One estimate I've seen in how much the country would save from withdrawing from the EU would be £8bn a year. With the Government so keen to save money would they take £3bn straight out of that saving and give it directly to farmers or just rely on cheaper imports?
Ok it wouldn't be as straightforward to say that farmers would lose all of that money as the govt would surely provide some subsidy but it's definitely fair to say there would be huge cuts.
Speaking of farming here, I'm fairly sure our own farmers would struggle without the huge subsidies the EU give them.
I've heard this point made in a few media articles but just can't see the logic. We are net contributors to the budget, it's not the EU's money that is going to the farmers unless we are net beneficiaries. Just because we send it to the EU, they take their cut and happen to be the ones that give some out to British farmers doesn't make it EU money.
But from what I understand is that the farming subsidy is one of the areas we benefit from. Estimates I've seen show that British farmers receive £3bn a year. One estimate I've seen in how much the country would save from withdrawing from the EU would be £8bn a year. With the Government so keen to save money would they take £3bn straight out of that saving and give it directly to farmers or just rely on cheaper imports?
Ok it wouldn't be as straightforward to say that farmers would lose all of that money as the govt would surely provide some subsidy but it's definitely fair to say there would be huge cuts.
Before we joined the Common Market (forerunner to EU) in 1972 farmers used to receive "deficiency payments" from the government.
Comments
You are European whether you like it or not by definition of the atlas. As for the single currency well that's too big a topic for here and now but the "wonderful" pound sterling is doing worse on the markets than either the euro or the dollar and has been for a number of years. The pound is so closely allied to the euro that we even subscribe to the bail out fund. If the eventual vote is for out do you really think that our current partners will do us any favours as we walk away ?
I must confess to not being aware of the freedom of movement rules within EFTA so thanks for pointing them out.
My initial thought is that we would be better off only being compelled to let people in from 4 different countries if we join EFTA rather than the 26 we presently do or (to be more accurate) shortly will. If, as is strongly mooted, Turkey shortly joins the EU we face the possibility of yet more potential immigrants we cannot restrict.
I suspect that a realistic estimate of numbers of potential immigrants and possible social security requirements is easier to quantify from the 4 EFTA countries than the other 26 EU countries.
My concerns about this whole thing is
So far all I have been told is that we pay roughly 80million a day to be part of it
No one can tell me what this money goes to or where
That there are EU members that contribute and some that seem to just receive
Why is this and how is it determined
I don't buy the trade argument and that is solely based on one simple theory
As a country I would expect us to import far more than we export and therefore if I wish to purchase something I am more likely to do so as a business with someone or some group of people who I can go into a partnership with so I buy of you, help me sell to him etc , you get my drift
I am sure as hell certain that based on the fact I am buying from you that you wouldn't be silly enough to stop the relationship based on the fact We pulled out of the EU after a referendum because ultimately it would affect you just as bad, and in a global market with very cheap imports and transportation costs from china etc I could well go else where
I also do not like and have witnessed for myself the restrictive and annoying legislation on work hrs that have impacted or caused me to break the law in order to supplement my income as I don't think they are fair
I have witnessed the fishing trade in this country go down hill and spoke at great lengths to good English people who feel strangulated whilst other countries come into our shores un opposed
I want to be sold on how good this 80 mil deal is for us if you could explain any of the points I raised it would be much appreciated
After 40 years of politically being part of Europe, I really can't see us again sitting alone on our little islands.
Warning - not for feint hearted!
You are correct that as a country imports exceed exports. But what about our exports? There are a number of multinationals based here for example car manufacturers who produce cars here mainly to be sold in mainland Europe. If we were to leave the EU there is a real possibility they would leave our country.
From a few articles I've read by economists many say that if we were to leave the EU there would be a few short term benefits such as no tariffs to pay and food prices falling. But long term there would be real uncertainty. Speaking of farming here, I'm fairly sure our own farmers would struggle without the huge subsidies the EU give them.
I completely agree with you that it is a very confusing area and it seems no one expert has a definitive answer as to what would happen. For most Britons, it is so easy for headline writers to run with a story that moans about how much we pay towards the EU or how many regulations there are. But it's not until people do the digging on their own that they can find out the true story
But people can't be so stupid as to think that Cameron has announced this because he wants a democratic vote. It is to placate a powerful lobby within his party. He should be focusing on getting the country straight, not pandering to his party's insecurities. It is scandalous but he seems to have gotten away with it.
And Kent - I have views that could be considered right and left too - I feel I am to the right on law on order but my view of the standing of a nation is how it treats those at the bottom. Not how rich those at the top are. My comments are consistent with those principles, not alligned to a party.
With regards to Brown, had he held the election on taking over just after the foot and mouth crisis he probably would have emerged as the largest party although short of a majority and been able to strike a Coalition deal with the LD's, as it was he bottled it (due to his innate caution and ridiculous paranoia) and never recovered the lost ground.
Hard to say he did not have a mandate to govern, we don't elect Prime Ministers in the UK, we elect MP's of political parties and even by May 2010 Labour still had a comfortable majority in the commons.
Government's don't lose a 'mandate' to govern just because they are unpopular, if they did then we'd never stop holding elections.
Mate you are asking me to be the pro - Europe counterpart on here to Len and the fanatics (Len, note- I dont think you are a fanatic, but most of UKIP clearly are. They remind me of the Socialist Workers). I'm not up to the job. My advice is, don't believe 'facts and figures' like the alleged 80 million/day, without double checking from another source. Generally the Europa website is worth your time, because it is basically the EU putting its own side of the story - which the majority of newspapers at least are not interested in doing.
I'll tell you briefly why I will vote to stay in. The EU has helped to bring peace and prosperity to a continent that saw our forefathers killed by the million, and where we wasted billions on the Cold War. Its obvious to me that our business and economy would suffer enormously if we are out. Not only will Toyota, Nissan and Honda pack up and leave the UK, but Tesco especially and M&S to give just two examples are doing very well in Central Europe and will find their business very uncompetitive if they are outside the EU. I think there's a lot wrong with the EU. Fisheries, and the Common Agriculture Policy, and the amount of red tape. But Brits forget that lots of people especially in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, agree. But they want to change it from within, and they are getting increasingly fed up with the frankly childish approach the British take to trying to change these policies. And finally like I say, Europe is blamed for a lot of shit that is entirely in our own hands to fix.
Cameron is raising the right questions in the wrong way for the wrong reasons but in a way I'm quite glad he is. I don't wan't the debate to be framed by a struggling Prime Minister trying to win the next election but no questions asked Europhiles have to realise what the end game is as well.
When Angela Merkel addressed the European Parliment a few months back the British press reported almost exclusively on her comments regarding a potential British exit, but for me the key quote was her saying 'Of course the European Commission will one day become a government, the EU council a second chamber and the European Parliament will have more powers'
This is the federal plan and it is a reality. The question is do you trust the European institutions enough to implement good policy and if they don't will you as a citizen of Europe have enough reach to remove them. British Democracy and politicians are far from perfect but the safeguard is that they can be given a good kicking in the polls and removed every five years. I fear that in a fedarlised European system the lack of a true European Demos will leave a powerful elite virtually untouchable to rule as they see fit.
It's all very well talking about regional trading blocs exerting power but a simple trading bloc is not on offer for European citizens.
PA cheers pal I will do that
Those that are pro EU does it not bother you that the alleged sums of money that we pay to be in the EU that no one so far can explain where it goes
Just goes there
And that not everyone in the EU pays it
We are billions if not trillions in debt as a country pull out for a few years don't pay it and then once the debt has gone go back in
It's like a bailout without asking others to do it
We gave money to bail out greece ain't this the same principle or is that too simplistic a view
If every country in the EU paid the same I think I could understand the point of it
I can't get my head around this it's a club u pay to be in it bit but not everyone does
Ok it wouldn't be as straightforward to say that farmers would lose all of that money as the govt would surely provide some subsidy but it's definitely fair to say there would be huge cuts.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/deficiency-payment.html
If we were to leave the EU we could instigate a similar scheme from the monies saved from either our direct contributions or reduced indirect costs.