The Hungarian PM is claiming that Hungarian migrants to the UK will still be able to claim benefits without ever contributing in tax even after Cameron's deal. Any of the experts in here like to confirm or deny this?
I don't believe benefit tourism is actually an issue but I'm interested to know if Cameron's handling of these negotiations have been even more cack-handed than I was led to believe.
Big campaign going on in Spain to get all of us who have 'jumped ship' / 'abandoned our country' who are eligible to vote to do so. There are over 1 million UK citizens living in Spain. I know some people on here won't like that!
For the record, I am finding this thread extremely positive in terms of the facts and arguments being used, definitely some convincing stuff. I'm an on-the-fence Out at the moment but honestly if the vote was tomorrow I could easily find my pencil accidentally crossing the Remain box instead
Great stuff guys, keep it up.
Yet again, I too find CL the go-to place for a discussion where one might actually learn something. On a day when the BBC has found it preferable to wash it's dirty laundry in public at the expense of providing any informative analysis on the referendum. (Which I fear it won't do all the way up to June 23). It seems the Beeb is so scared of being accused of breaching it's "balance" remit, that it feels incapable of questioning even the most ludicrous suggestions made by the rent-a-mob crowd from the Westminster village.
The Hungarian PM is claiming that Hungarian migrants to the UK will still be able to claim benefits without ever contributing in tax even after Cameron's deal. Any of the experts in here like to confirm or deny this?
I don't believe benefit tourism is actually an issue but I'm interested to know if Cameron's handling of these negotiations have been even more cack-handed than I was led to believe.
@Fiiish, I'm not sure about his comments, but Viktor Orban is a very nasty piece of work, in my opinion. His political stance is that of being Hungary's Strongman, standing up to, among other things, the EU. So it would not surprise me in the least if he was pushing an interpretation at variance with the facts of the "deal" (which is more a recapitulation of the UK's status, rather than a new deal because, yes, you guessed it, a new deal would require treaty negotiation - not possible given the timescale).
Look him up, and take a wee look at his party's political allies across the EU.
If his sort of politics were to dominate the EU, I'd be voting to leave - he scares the crap out of me (which takes a lot of scaring, I must say - before anyone else does).
The Hungarian PM is claiming that Hungarian migrants to the UK will still be able to claim benefits without ever contributing in tax even after Cameron's deal. Any of the experts in here like to confirm or deny this?
I don't believe benefit tourism is actually an issue but I'm interested to know if Cameron's handling of these negotiations have been even more cack-handed than I was led to believe.
@Fiiish, I'm not sure about his comments, but Viktor Orban is a very nasty piece of work, in my opinion. His political stance is that of being Hungary's Strongman, standing up to, among other things, the EU. So it would not surprise me in the least if he was pushing an interpretation at variance with the facts of the "deal" (which is more a recapitulation of the UK's status, rather than a new deal because, yes, you guessed it, a new deal would require treaty negotiation - not possible given the timescale).
Look him up, and take a wee look at his party's political allies across the EU.
If his sort of politics were to dominate the EU, I'd be voting to leave - he scares the crap out of me (which takes a lot of scaring, I must say - before anyone else does).
Make you 100% right on Orban. Hungary is a sad case all round. In the 90s it was the most progressive of the CEE countries, always a year or so ahead of the Czechs, the sun shone brighter, for longer. Then they started doing things like taking out mortgages in Swiss francs and yen, encouraged by their government, and when it all went to pot, they turned in on themselves, and Orban is the result.
Can't check the detail straight away, but a sensible stance is not to believe anything that muppet says. He's Putin's man in the EU.
Interesting debate so far, has anyone changed their mind one way or another based on the discourse here ?
I've read a few times that the campaigns are trying to win over the large undecided middle ground but pretty much everyone I know has already decided one way or another and I don't think there are any arguments that could sway them.
I think my mind may be changing to be quite honest, I was on the fence but leaning towards OUT... and now I'm doing the same but leaning towards IN.
This thread's better than the other one, it must be said. The other one appears to revolve around fruit based confectionary and immigration.
I think it's interesting to hear that other countries are also watching as their own public are dissatisfied with the way things have are; and to me, that suggests that regardless of how we vote there needs to be some major changes to how the EU works.
In theory the EU is a wonderful idea, and I'd like to see it succeed - and be a part of it. Unfortunately I think it will never be easy due to the sheer differences in cultures and economies.
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
You may be right about BoJo's motivation, though I think his main prize is closer to home.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
We will agree to disagree.
You believe that you can change the EU by "punching your weight". That works with two protagonists, but even Mike Tyson would get rolled over in a 1 v 27 contest. A treaty change and nothing else will reconstruct the EU as a trading block and that is never going happen without it being forced to do so. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
As regards the rest of Europe ganging up on us, i would say you underestimate the power of self interest.
This is why it is confusing. One Eurosceptic says we should remain the EEA, so be part of a 0-27 contest. Another (you) seems to assume (I may have misinterpreted your meaning, Dips) that it is ALWAYS "us" against all of "them", a third (Braydex) says three other nations are set to follow the UK. Another lives and works in France, so does appear to be exactly a turkey voting for Christmas. It's all a bit "Schrodinger's Immigrant" to me...
How is Rob voting for christmas, he must feel he offers enough to the French to entitle him to some form of residence.
You say these things as if Brits will never be allowed into Europe again, yet many of us live, work and buy property outside of the EU.
For the record, I am finding this thread extremely positive in terms of the facts and arguments being used, definitely some convincing stuff. I'm an on-the-fence Out at the moment but honestly if the vote was tomorrow I could easily find my pencil accidentally crossing the Remain box instead
Great stuff guys, keep it up.
Yet again, I too find CL the go-to place for a discussion where one might actually learn something. On a day when the BBC has found it preferable to wash it's dirty laundry in public at the expense of providing any informative analysis on the referendum. (Which I fear it won't do all the way up to June 23). It seems the Beeb is so scared of being accused of breaching it's "balance" remit, that it feels incapable of questioning even the most ludicrous suggestions made by the rent-a-mob crowd from the Westminster village.
They really cannot win can they? I think that had they not done so you would have said "Where is the reporting on the Saville report from the BBC - bloody hiding the facts as usual". I get a feeling that your fears are unfounded, and if they might be scared of breaching their balance remit - could it be because the Tories are on a witch hunt, because the Beeb don't tow the line that all their pals in the right wing press do?
Here's a couple of articles they have squeezed in, apparently under your radar...
How about looking forward. Just like the health warning on marketing material for investments "past performance is no indication of future performance".
We should vote out and help the collapse of the EU which Shengen is already causing and reconstitute it along the lines of the ASEAN trading block which can do everything the EU does except it allows countries to choose who they let in to meet gaps in the labour force.
We all need Europe to work as a free trading block with as little interference as possible from an undemocratic and unnecessary layer of supranational government, which rules out the EU as currently constituted. The chances of the UK sticking with the EU and getting the EU gravy train to dismantle itself from within has a chance of nought to zero.
I suspect that is what Boris has in mind but he can hardly state it as a policy and will live with the ridicule until the EU implodes.
You may be right about BoJo's motivation, though I think his main prize is closer to home.
I would be very surprised if a collapse of the EU would lead to the creation of a new trading bloc any time soon, the atmosphere of recrimination would be utterly toxic, given the huge economic impact (I'm not sure any of us really want to see the sort of crash that EU collapse would unleash). If the destruction of the EU was seen on the continent as the real reason that the UK would vote to leave, I would expect that any new trading bloc would regard the UK in much the same light as deGaulle did in the 1960s. In such a circumstance, do you really believe that Germany, which would lose hugely in financial terms, would trust the UK enough to want to have any closer arrangement than it has with Australia?
Also, I'm not actually sure that ASEAN are doing such a good job about choosing who they let in. There is a huge issue about refugees and migrants travelling between the nations without any papers (e.g. unregistered Indonesians working in Malaysia).
If your concern with the UK position is that it cannot get the EU to dismantle a "gravy train", the answer is simple, vote according to your beliefs. If the UK leaves, it should follow the Swiss model and negotiate bilateral deals, where necessary, on trade issues with the EU.
I will vote to remain in, because I disagree with your premise that the UK cannot help change the EU. However, I would like to see the UK try, for a change, a less semi-detached approach. There are really excellent UK politicians, diplomats, etc. who could really make their mark, if only UK governments were prepared to punch to their weight...
We will agree to disagree.
You believe that you can change the EU by "punching your weight". That works with two protagonists, but even Mike Tyson would get rolled over in a 1 v 27 contest. A treaty change and nothing else will reconstruct the EU as a trading block and that is never going happen without it being forced to do so. Turkeys don't vote for Xmas.
As regards the rest of Europe ganging up on us, i would say you underestimate the power of self interest.
This is why it is confusing. One Eurosceptic says we should remain the EEA, so be part of a 0-27 contest. Another (you) seems to assume (I may have misinterpreted your meaning, Dips) that it is ALWAYS "us" against all of "them", a third (Braydex) says three other nations are set to follow the UK. Another lives and works in France, so does appear to be exactly a turkey voting for Christmas. It's all a bit "Schrodinger's Immigrant" to me...
How is Rob voting for christmas, he must feel he offers enough to the French to entitle him to some form of residence.
You say these things as if Brits will never be allowed into Europe again, yet many of us live, work and buy property outside of the EU.
Maybe I have not recalled the percentage correctly, but to the best of my knowledge 40% of the EU budget is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy ... a policy that, in the main, subsidises farmers to leave land un-farmed.
Our contribution to CAP is £6 billion p.a., and out of that UK farmers receive £3 billion subsidy. Therefore, we are, in effect, using these funds to primarily subsidise French farmers.
So would we be £3 billion better off if we exited?
The CAP does seem to be a complete con. Great for French farmers but unjustifiable given the millions of families across the EU who cannot afford their weekly food shop any more.
Maybe I have not recalled the percentage correctly, but to the best of my knowledge 40% of the EU budget is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy ... a policy that, in the main, subsidises farmers to leave land un-farmed.
Our contribution to CAP is £6 billion p.a., and out of that UK farmers receive £3 billion subsidy. Therefore, we are, in effect, using these funds to primarily subsidise French farmers.
So would we be £3 billion better off if we exited?
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that...
As the size of the budget would indicate, the CAP is clearly open to abuses, and there is evidence of fraudulent claims throughout the EU countries. Even where not, strictly speaking fraudulent, it is worrying that in the UK airports, for example (including Manchester and Stansted in 2014), could claim CAP payments (as could golf clubs, football clubs, racecourses and the Salvation Army - see: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/). The CAP has shrunk from a whopping 87% of the 1980 EC/EU budget, and 71% in 1984.
In the earlier years of the CAP, it was intended to maximise agricultural production (with EEC intervention in a large number of agricultural produce types), however, the funding is now split between supporting production and wider rural development. The CAP has been under fairly regular reforms since 1992; but improvement, especially for countries with small agricultural sectors, such as the UK, is very slow. It is, in part, because of the removal of milk quotas, as part of the efforts by the EU to reduce CAP spending, that UK dairy farmers are suffering to the extent that they are.
With the introduction of the Single Farm Payment farmers' lands must be in good agricultural and environmental condition. It won't help any of you to hear it, but farmers have to meet many more standards - environmental, sanitary (not so much the farmers themselves), animal welfare, etc. - than had previously been the case. These standards have encouraged more farmers to consider moving towards extensification, rather than intensive farming.
For small farmers, the CAP is an absolute lifeline, providing roughly half their annual income - but the real winners are the big landowners who, like the Royal Family, would otherwise struggle to make ends meet (if it weren't for the CAP I'd imagine we'd have to run charity gigs for the Duke of Westminster and others who would struggle to survive).
Even the French, farmers or otherwise, have recognised that the CAP needs reform, with the eastward expansion of the EU increasing the volume of agricultural land. There is an ongoing process and, as always, it's not perfect (if the EU Commission had the power that it is supposed to have, there would be a cap on the CAP payments made to any one landowner), but the CAP is not what it once was, and will not be what it is now in the future.
Maybe I have not recalled the percentage correctly, but to the best of my knowledge 40% of the EU budget is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy ... a policy that, in the main, subsidises farmers to leave land un-farmed.
Our contribution to CAP is £6 billion p.a., and out of that UK farmers receive £3 billion subsidy. Therefore, we are, in effect, using these funds to primarily subsidise French farmers.
So would we be £3 billion better off if we exited?
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that...
As the size of the budget would indicate, the CAP is clearly open to abuses, and there is evidence of fraudulent claims throughout the EU countries. Even where not, strictly speaking fraudulent, it is worrying that in the UK airports, for example (including Manchester and Stansted in 2014), could claim CAP payments (as could golf clubs, football clubs, racecourses and the Salvation Army - see: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/). The CAP has shrunk from a whopping 87% of the 1980 EC/EU budget, and 71% in 1984.
In the earlier years of the CAP, it was intended to maximise agricultural production (with EEC intervention in a large number of agricultural produce types), however, the funding is now split between supporting production and wider rural development. The CAP has been under fairly regular reforms since 1992; but improvement, especially for countries with small agricultural sectors, such as the UK, is very slow. It is, in part, because of the removal of milk quotas, as part of the efforts by the EU to reduce CAP spending, that UK dairy farmers are suffering to the extent that they are.
With the introduction of the Single Farm Payment farmers' lands must be in good agricultural and environmental condition. It won't help any of you to hear it, but farmers have to meet many more standards - environmental, sanitary (not so much the farmers themselves), animal welfare, etc. - than had previously been the case. These standards have encouraged more farmers to consider moving towards extensification, rather than intensive farming.
For small farmers, the CAP is an absolute lifeline, providing roughly half their annual income - but the real winners are the big landowners who, like the Royal Family, would otherwise struggle to make ends meet (if it weren't for the CAP I'd imagine we'd have to run charity gigs for the Duke of Westminster and others who would struggle to survive).
Even the French, farmers or otherwise, have recognised that the CAP needs reform, with the eastward expansion of the EU increasing the volume of agricultural land. There is an ongoing process and, as always, it's not perfect (if the EU Commission had the power that it is supposed to have, there would be a cap on the CAP payments made to any one landowner), but the CAP is not what it once was, and will not be what it is now in the future.
thanks ... not particularly positive reading to be honest ... this is such an abuse of funding
Maybe I have not recalled the percentage correctly, but to the best of my knowledge 40% of the EU budget is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy ... a policy that, in the main, subsidises farmers to leave land un-farmed.
Our contribution to CAP is £6 billion p.a., and out of that UK farmers receive £3 billion subsidy. Therefore, we are, in effect, using these funds to primarily subsidise French farmers.
So would we be £3 billion better off if we exited?
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that...
As the size of the budget would indicate, the CAP is clearly open to abuses, and there is evidence of fraudulent claims throughout the EU countries. Even where not, strictly speaking fraudulent, it is worrying that in the UK airports, for example (including Manchester and Stansted in 2014), could claim CAP payments (as could golf clubs, football clubs, racecourses and the Salvation Army - see: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/). The CAP has shrunk from a whopping 87% of the 1980 EC/EU budget, and 71% in 1984.
In the earlier years of the CAP, it was intended to maximise agricultural production (with EEC intervention in a large number of agricultural produce types), however, the funding is now split between supporting production and wider rural development. The CAP has been under fairly regular reforms since 1992; but improvement, especially for countries with small agricultural sectors, such as the UK, is very slow. It is, in part, because of the removal of milk quotas, as part of the efforts by the EU to reduce CAP spending, that UK dairy farmers are suffering to the extent that they are.
With the introduction of the Single Farm Payment farmers' lands must be in good agricultural and environmental condition. It won't help any of you to hear it, but farmers have to meet many more standards - environmental, sanitary (not so much the farmers themselves), animal welfare, etc. - than had previously been the case. These standards have encouraged more farmers to consider moving towards extensification, rather than intensive farming.
For small farmers, the CAP is an absolute lifeline, providing roughly half their annual income - but the real winners are the big landowners who, like the Royal Family, would otherwise struggle to make ends meet (if it weren't for the CAP I'd imagine we'd have to run charity gigs for the Duke of Westminster and others who would struggle to survive).
Even the French, farmers or otherwise, have recognised that the CAP needs reform, with the eastward expansion of the EU increasing the volume of agricultural land. There is an ongoing process and, as always, it's not perfect (if the EU Commission had the power that it is supposed to have, there would be a cap on the CAP payments made to any one landowner), but the CAP is not what it once was, and will not be what it is now in the future.
thanks ... not particularly positive reading to be honest ... this is such an abuse of funding
Agreed, but a huge problem is that some people can always work a system to their advantage...
Some of them are probably members of the Mafia, mind you, so I can understand why administrative oversight might not always be what it could be.
Maybe I have not recalled the percentage correctly, but to the best of my knowledge 40% of the EU budget is spent on the Common Agricultural Policy ... a policy that, in the main, subsidises farmers to leave land un-farmed.
Our contribution to CAP is £6 billion p.a., and out of that UK farmers receive £3 billion subsidy. Therefore, we are, in effect, using these funds to primarily subsidise French farmers.
So would we be £3 billion better off if we exited?
As ever, it's a bit more complex than that...
As the size of the budget would indicate, the CAP is clearly open to abuses, and there is evidence of fraudulent claims throughout the EU countries. Even where not, strictly speaking fraudulent, it is worrying that in the UK airports, for example (including Manchester and Stansted in 2014), could claim CAP payments (as could golf clubs, football clubs, racecourses and the Salvation Army - see: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/). The CAP has shrunk from a whopping 87% of the 1980 EC/EU budget, and 71% in 1984.
In the earlier years of the CAP, it was intended to maximise agricultural production (with EEC intervention in a large number of agricultural produce types), however, the funding is now split between supporting production and wider rural development. The CAP has been under fairly regular reforms since 1992; but improvement, especially for countries with small agricultural sectors, such as the UK, is very slow. It is, in part, because of the removal of milk quotas, as part of the efforts by the EU to reduce CAP spending, that UK dairy farmers are suffering to the extent that they are.
With the introduction of the Single Farm Payment farmers' lands must be in good agricultural and environmental condition. It won't help any of you to hear it, but farmers have to meet many more standards - environmental, sanitary (not so much the farmers themselves), animal welfare, etc. - than had previously been the case. These standards have encouraged more farmers to consider moving towards extensification, rather than intensive farming.
For small farmers, the CAP is an absolute lifeline, providing roughly half their annual income - but the real winners are the big landowners who, like the Royal Family, would otherwise struggle to make ends meet (if it weren't for the CAP I'd imagine we'd have to run charity gigs for the Duke of Westminster and others who would struggle to survive).
Even the French, farmers or otherwise, have recognised that the CAP needs reform, with the eastward expansion of the EU increasing the volume of agricultural land. There is an ongoing process and, as always, it's not perfect (if the EU Commission had the power that it is supposed to have, there would be a cap on the CAP payments made to any one landowner), but the CAP is not what it once was, and will not be what it is now in the future.
thanks ... not particularly positive reading to be honest ... this is such an abuse of funding
Oh forgot to say, the last I heard, the French agricultural sector does get the largest amount from CAP, of any one country, c. 17-18%, but their output is in or around that also...
Though, on the plus side, I'm not aware of the French Royal Family getting much out of it.
Are we supposed to think that being "exempt" from those things is a good thing (I assume that's the idea, since those cells are coloured green).
I want our country to participate in the ECJ, I want us to be signatories to the fundamental rights charter.
What is the difference between the EEA "emergency brake" and that negotiated by Cameron (genuine question, I don't know) ?
It's clearly written from an incredibly biased point of view, for instance it says that the EEA members save circa 50% per head on "EU Payment" but nothing of the benefits they miss out on.
@Fiiish, sorry for not replying earlier, been out farming, those CAP subsidies don't grow on trees you know (well, they do actually, but not on my brother's cattle and sheep farm)....
Oh dear, why do these people have to lie and undermine their argument? UK has no voice in global bodies? Just off the top of my head I know we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I expect there are many more, like The Commonwealth, which just sprung to mind. Brings into question all the other "facts" on there as far as I am concerned, and I am sure others who are on the fence will see more doubtful claims from the anti-EU lobby...
Interesting to see how one infographic is blasted as lies and bias and another is defended as being fair and fact-based based on each poster's current standing. I felt my assertion that the 30-year old EU could not claim to be solely responsible for 70 years of European peace was fair yet the usual souls came out accusing me of being unfair. Maybe these posters need to consider blindly attacking anything that doesn't fit their narrow view undermines their credibility.
@Fiiish, sorry for not replying earlier, been out farming, those CAP subsidies don't grow on trees you know (well, they do actually, but not on my brother's cattle and sheep farm)....
I hate this feckin phone, had a long spiel, written for this, hit submit comment and all you got was the quip...
Anyway, my line was that, like a survey, how the graphic was structured determined how it reads. I do think it's disingenuous to talk about c50% savings per head, partly because we don't know what the EFTA countries pay in subsidies for their agricultural sectors. And the use of "exempt" for the EFTA column is meaningless; how can you be exempt from something that is a membership condition if you're not a member. It's like me saying that I'm exempted from childbirth because I don't have the right reproductive organs. The column should have said either "no" or "n/a", IMHO.
Also, the UK, as a leading member of a major trading bloc (with natural allies in that bloc), clearly has a voice in global trading bodies, and clearly also has a voice in the UN, etc., though that's nothing to do with either trade grouping, naturally.
Basically, I agree with @Fiiish and @se9addick that everyone sees things from their own perspective. So what seems biased to me, may be absolutely logical to others...
And, as an aside, the EU is clearly part of a process begun by the ECSC, and it is true that increasing intra-European cooperation and, dare I say it, integration has coincided with a period without war between these partner countries. I will not say that it is because of ECSC/EC/EU, but it is, in my view, part of the same drive...
Comments
I don't believe benefit tourism is actually an issue but I'm interested to know if Cameron's handling of these negotiations have been even more cack-handed than I was led to believe.
On a day when the BBC has found it preferable to wash it's dirty laundry in public at the expense of providing any informative analysis on the referendum. (Which I fear it won't do all the way up to June 23).
It seems the Beeb is so scared of being accused of breaching it's "balance" remit, that it feels incapable of questioning even the most ludicrous suggestions made by the rent-a-mob crowd from the Westminster village.
Look him up, and take a wee look at his party's political allies across the EU.
If his sort of politics were to dominate the EU, I'd be voting to leave - he scares the crap out of me (which takes a lot of scaring, I must say - before anyone else does).
Can't check the detail straight away, but a sensible stance is not to believe anything that muppet says. He's Putin's man in the EU.
This thread's better than the other one, it must be said. The other one appears to revolve around fruit based confectionary and immigration.
I think it's interesting to hear that other countries are also watching as their own public are dissatisfied with the way things have are; and to me, that suggests that regardless of how we vote there needs to be some major changes to how the EU works.
In theory the EU is a wonderful idea, and I'd like to see it succeed - and be a part of it. Unfortunately I think it will never be easy due to the sheer differences in cultures and economies.
You say these things as if Brits will never be allowed into Europe again, yet many of us live, work and buy property outside of the EU.
Here's a couple of articles they have squeezed in, apparently under your radar...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33141819
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35667537
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35641263
I don't want to live outside the EU.
'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'„
Our contribution to CAP is £6 billion p.a., and out of that UK farmers receive £3 billion subsidy. Therefore, we are, in effect, using these funds to primarily subsidise French farmers.
So would we be £3 billion better off if we exited?
As the size of the budget would indicate, the CAP is clearly open to abuses, and there is evidence of fraudulent claims throughout the EU countries. Even where not, strictly speaking fraudulent, it is worrying that in the UK airports, for example (including Manchester and Stansted in 2014), could claim CAP payments (as could golf clubs, football clubs, racecourses and the Salvation Army - see: http://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/). The CAP has shrunk from a whopping 87% of the 1980 EC/EU budget, and 71% in 1984.
In the earlier years of the CAP, it was intended to maximise agricultural production (with EEC intervention in a large number of agricultural produce types), however, the funding is now split between supporting production and wider rural development. The CAP has been under fairly regular reforms since 1992; but improvement, especially for countries with small agricultural sectors, such as the UK, is very slow. It is, in part, because of the removal of milk quotas, as part of the efforts by the EU to reduce CAP spending, that UK dairy farmers are suffering to the extent that they are.
With the introduction of the Single Farm Payment farmers' lands must be in good agricultural and environmental condition. It won't help any of you to hear it, but farmers have to meet many more standards - environmental, sanitary (not so much the farmers themselves), animal welfare, etc. - than had previously been the case. These standards have encouraged more farmers to consider moving towards extensification, rather than intensive farming.
For small farmers, the CAP is an absolute lifeline, providing roughly half their annual income - but the real winners are the big landowners who, like the Royal Family, would otherwise struggle to make ends meet (if it weren't for the CAP I'd imagine we'd have to run charity gigs for the Duke of Westminster and others who would struggle to survive).
Even the French, farmers or otherwise, have recognised that the CAP needs reform, with the eastward expansion of the EU increasing the volume of agricultural land. There is an ongoing process and, as always, it's not perfect (if the EU Commission had the power that it is supposed to have, there would be a cap on the CAP payments made to any one landowner), but the CAP is not what it once was, and will not be what it is now in the future.
Some of them are probably members of the Mafia, mind you, so I can understand why administrative oversight might not always be what it could be.
Though, on the plus side, I'm not aware of the French Royal Family getting much out of it.
Any comments on the below graphic?
I am probably a tiny minority in this attitude though.
I want our country to participate in the ECJ, I want us to be signatories to the fundamental rights charter.
What is the difference between the EEA "emergency brake" and that negotiated by Cameron (genuine question, I don't know) ?
It's clearly written from an incredibly biased point of view, for instance it says that the EEA members save circa 50% per head on "EU Payment" but nothing of the benefits they miss out on.
Anyway, my line was that, like a survey, how the graphic was structured determined how it reads. I do think it's disingenuous to talk about c50% savings per head, partly because we don't know what the EFTA countries pay in subsidies for their agricultural sectors. And the use of "exempt" for the EFTA column is meaningless; how can you be exempt from something that is a membership condition if you're not a member. It's like me saying that I'm exempted from childbirth because I don't have the right reproductive organs. The column should have said either "no" or "n/a", IMHO.
Also, the UK, as a leading member of a major trading bloc (with natural allies in that bloc), clearly has a voice in global trading bodies, and clearly also has a voice in the UN, etc., though that's nothing to do with either trade grouping, naturally.
Basically, I agree with @Fiiish and @se9addick that everyone sees things from their own perspective. So what seems biased to me, may be absolutely logical to others...
And, as an aside, the EU is clearly part of a process begun by the ECSC, and it is true that increasing intra-European cooperation and, dare I say it, integration has coincided with a period without war between these partner countries. I will not say that it is because of ECSC/EC/EU, but it is, in my view, part of the same drive...