| The Comments |
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
9
Like
|
Perhaps my post wasn't word for word OR clear enough
Britain has opposed seventy-two EU measures in the European Council and been defeated seventy-two times, says Peter Lilley MP. .... is he lying?.....
3
Like
|
I don't know jarvi, is he? He's certainly being economical with the truth. The council of the EU is made up of heads of state of the members (so our member on the EU council is David Cameron) and, whilst he says Britain (in the case Cameron) has opposed 72 measures, what does that mean? One of the measures has been for all member states to adopt the euro and we haven't done that. Another measure is open borders under Schengen and we haven't done that. Maybe he means other countries have adopted things.
He's a politician who has changed his mind and wants to leave the EU. I think blurring the truth on both sides is getting to be the whole tone of this referendum. A bit like tteedd and his 51 million quid a day or, and this might have been a slip, including the EU council among "none of whom are elected" when they are actually the heads of each member government. Maybe he just meant the commissioners who are nominated by the countries and, agreed, not elected. Then again, we have a whole parliament called the House of Lords who are not elected either.
0
Like
|
By Full Fact Team
February 25, 2016 • 1:28 p.m.
The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back.
In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion.
Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £5 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £18 billion in contributions
2
Like
|
Britain contributes to the EU because membership advantages far and away justifies the costs.
Britain joined the EU to avoid economic decline. The UK’s per capita GDP relative to the EU founding members’ declined steadily from 1945 to 1972. However, it was relatively stable between 1973 and 2010. This suggests substantial benefits from EU membership especially considering that, by sponsoring an overpowered integration model, Britain joined too late, at a bad moment in time, and at an avoidably larger cost.
Nauro F Campos.
Professor of Economics and Finance, Brunel University; Research Fellow, IZA-Bonn; and CEPR Research Affiliate
His conclusion are that such a prominent structural break (and to the best of our knowledge one not previously detected and analysed) suggests substantial benefits from EU membership.
I have read and studied the many economic predictions of Brexit and the reason for such. It is quite clear in the opinion of most mainstream economic analysts. If Britain leaves the EU it will return to the economic decline of the post wars years. There is wise old saying that ‘if you want to know the future you only have to study the past’.
Read the history of the EU and reasons why the UK joined here. It’s a relevant today and in the 1970’s.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/britain-s-eu-membership-new-insight-economic-history
Since the post war decades the world economy has changed considerably. Globalisation is a major feature of world trade. However that does not mean Britain can successfully remain outside major trading blocks. It is common sense that power and influence in the world is gained through size and bargaining power. As a separate nation the UK would struggle.
It is also misleading to point to the success of Norway and Switzerland and make comparisons with the UK. Their populations are much smaller and have different reasons for their economic success than membership of the EEA.
A prediction on Bloomberg this morning of a 20% Sterling decline concurs with that of Goldman Sachs.
Why? The financial markets are convinced Britain will start a path of downward economic decline running up and beyond after exit from the EU. The markets like bookies are almost never wrong. The history of Britain’s economic stagnation should ring alarm bells all over the land.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Our largest imports and exports are cars and they very much offset each other. Our risk on an EU exit is that car manufacturers relocate their businesses. As I said very early on in the debate, businesses will not debate business they will just relocate. It won't be right away after an EU exit, but unless the UK can replace the benefits of free trade within the EU with something else why would car manufacturers who are owned abroad not relocate their businesses to a more beneficial regime as time for investment/reinvestment occurs?
0
Like
|
Yes baz, what I've said all along. £8.5 billion which is nowhere near the 51 million per day that is bandied about. Yes, it costs the UK but noone has mentioned the benefits that come in with the number of jobs created (and, no I still don't believe the scaremongering about that being 3 million jobs) which I imagine is quite substantial. The amount of money quoted is like buying a car. You pay £10,000 for a car and the dealer says I'll give you a discount so you only pay £8,000. Now, you can either impress your friends with telling them the car cost 10 grand or you can impress them with your financial acumen by showing how little you actually paid and got it for 8 grand. Depends who you are trying to impress.
Just like reading the vested interest websites on what the EU is worth to us. Look at Ukip and they state we lose on GDP whereas some of the banking sites claim it is worth 9% of our GDP. Obviously some of these are taking the truth and bending it out of all proportion. Most agree 3 to 5% of GDP which is 2.94 trillion US dollars. Mind boggling figures where zeros meld into one and is impossible for anyone to understand.
In fact, this whole referendum thing is getting out of hand and figures appear to be plucked out of the air. I don't think the average person can get their minds around this and will, probably, not even be a factor in the election.
Immigration will be and if someone can possibly tell me how leaving the EU will stop that then they are better than some of the websites. Some of the more ranting out sites say we can get rid of all the ones we have but wouldn't that mean the other EU countries getting rid of us? Most confuse legal immigration with illegal immigration. How would leaving the EU stop the illegals coming in? They always have entered UK. How would it stop those from SE Asia coming in?
No, the greatest thing that would ease the problem is if the UK applied the EU rules on residency like most other EU countries do. That there are no checks on EU nationals coming in, no checks on access to healthcare, no checks on available funds and so and is a UK problem which people conveniently blame on the EU. Read Article 6 through 8 of the EU rules on residency. People decry Spain as a third world country but they can manage to do it whilst it seems far too difficult for the UK to.
To those voting out, who are you going to blame in future for the shortcomings in the UK systems? And do you really want to gamble with your and your kids futures under the spurious heading of democracy and sovereignty?
0
Like
|
The second largest import/export is petroeum and refined products where we import more than we export. We have around £10billion imbalance in that area and it is hard to see how it will change.
We import a lot more goods from Germany than we export to Germany hence a Trade imbalance. Germany is our most important export market for petroleum products. With a world market glut of oil Germany has no end of countries that want to export oil to her. The products we import (buy) from Germany are mainly manufactured goods where there may not be a replacement market for us to buy from. In that sense we are an important market for Germany but a bit captive. The two economies have become entwined, and Britain is the biggest investment destination for German companies, despite having different currencies. Germany is firmly fixed in the EU. They want the UK to stay in the EU.
I keep saying it, we should not be afraid to be driving the EU from within the EU. The UK can and will supercede France to become the major voice in the EU alongside Germany if we want to be.
We have a special relationship with then US in part because we are in the EU. We have a special relationship with Germany because we are in the EU. We are debating the wrong thing. It is not about being in or out of the EU it is about what our place in the EU should be. I guess that makes me just as much of a nationalist as people who want to be rid of the EU. But. I want to be a BIG UK not a little uk.
0
Like
|
Mariedav.
I also was one who pointed out that we spend 50 mill plus a day, but like many I also have to read and, for the most part believe, or try to, what I read, knowing you shouldn't perhaps yes, to many conflicting issues with it all.
And Like I pointed out earlier this, and past governments, have told so many lies and covered up on just about everything, how on earth can you trust them when they give out one sided reasons to stay in.
0
Like
|
Here is a list of countries not currently in any world trade organisation or trading block. You would possibily have to add Britains name to these after Brexit.
Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Liberia,Comoros, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea and Yemen.
If Britain wants to leave the EU continued membership of the WTO is not a given. It has to be negotiated and new treaties agreed. Estimated current time scale to complete that is 7 to 10 years. Britain gained acceptance to the WTO because all EU countries become members automatically.
WTO Director General has said "Britain would lose it's influence if it left the EU. He said, "the more that a country or a member is in a position to join with others in defending a particular idea or defending a particular agenda, the easier it is to push through its interests".
0
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
50/50 on the voting I would have thought it would be a landslide for the INs especially now Francois Cameron has shown how big his B----S are are in Paris
I am really begining to dislike Francois Cameron he is not good for the UK
And quite frankly some of the Posts on this subject are getting very Silly my Dads bigger than your Dad just grow up
This is the most important vote any of you will evercast
Love Hugh xx
Carry on voting please
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
6
Like
|
Does it follow from your informative post Mariedav that Spain does not currently have a migrant problem due to the tightening of residency controls?
Can anyone identify if and how the UK have recently tightened their own residency controls?
In terms of the effectiveness of the EU Commission and with regard to citizens rights, under the current system does the EU Commission currently have the power to stamp any form of moral authority and ensure compliance with the rule of law across its 28 member states, or do citizens rights remain vulnerable in this regard (in particular with regard to timely administration of Justice, adherence to existing law, compliance with Bank regulations/ethical standards ) ?
Does the EU have any authority to ensure that large corporations consistently pay their fair share of tax across all member states?
0
Like
|
Can anyone identify if and how the UK have recently tightened their own residency controls?
I have no doubt they would say "Yes fully tightened the controls"
Hardly any are coming now due to these controls.
Thats why Cameron can say only 250,000 ish came in....Don't know if he meant last week or last year.
But hang on a mo..Why has the department in charge of handing out Social Security Numbers now said well we handed out over 600,000 SSN's for the same period.
Yes, the controls have been tightened up, but by what is anyone's guess.
0
Like
|
Ads wrote.
Does it follow from your informative post Mariedav that Spain does not currently have a migrant problem due to the tightening of residency controls?
Spain has a huge influx of migrants. From the Maghreb, Eastern Europe and Britain. The British and the Maghreb immigrants ignore the rules and generally live and work illegally unchecked and unregistered. Laws are in place but enforcement virtually none existent.
Can anyone identify if and how the UK have recently tightened their own residency controls?
I read in today’s Guardian controls are not carried out very effectively at entry ports. Illegal none EU immigrants can still and do enter Britain and find work on the black. Enforcement is very weak.
In terms of the effectiveness of the EU Commission and with regard to citizens rights, under the current system does the EU Commission currently have the power to stamp any form of moral authority and ensure compliance with the rule of law across its 28 member states, or do citizens rights remain vulnerable in this regard (in particular with regard to timely administration of Justice, adherence to existing law, compliance with Bank regulations/ethical standards ) ?
Yes EU Commissioners have efective enforcement and investigatory powers. Enforcement varies depending on the subject matter. Financial loss usually is a priority.
Does the EU have any authority to ensure that large corporations consistently pay their fair share of tax across all member states?
As above.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
The FT's view of Brexit.
What would happen if we left the EU?
As a hypothetical event, Brexit still largely lacks definition. Some EU critics say it would be possible to leave the bloc and scrap free movement of people while retaining access to the single market.
Their opponents say such a suggestion is fanciful in the extreme, adding that a UK outside the EU could either choose to follow Norway, which pays into the EU budget and implements the bloc’s regulations, or opt for a much more distant relationship, with trade governed by World Trade Organisation rules.
The impact of Brexit will be determined by at least two variables, neither of which is remotely settled: what kind of post-membership relationship with the EU the UK wants, and whether the bloc is willing to agree. A Norway-style coexistence might be much less of a change than many expect; a bigger rift could have profound consequences for both Britain and the EU itself.
What are economists’ views on Brexit?
Economists overwhelmingly believe that leaving the EU is bad for the country’s economic prospects. In the FT’s annual poll of more than 100 leading thinkers, not one thought a vote for Brexit would enhance UK growth in 2016.
As for the medium term prospects of the country, almost three-quarters of the economists polled thought leaving the EU would damage Britain’s outlook; just 8 per cent thought the country would benefit from leaving. Less than 20 per cent thought it would make little difference.
Why should we stay in the EU?
Speaking to the BBC in the aftermath of the February negotiations on recalibrating Britain’s membership, Mr Cameron outlined the basics of his case. “We are out of the things we don’t want to be in: the euro; we are out of the no borders agreement; we’re now out of ever-closer union. We keep the full access and the say over the single market, and the political co-operation to keep the people of our country safe.”
He warned of seven years of uncertainty if Britain chose to leave — because of the time it would take to negotiate an exit: “And at the end of that process you still can’t be certain that our businesses will have full access to the market, so it could cost jobs.”
Why should we leave the EU?
Michael Gove, Britain’s justice secretary, set out his argument for Brexit as soon as the June 23 referendum was announced. “Our membership of the EU prevents us being able to change huge swaths of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives,” he said.
He added that the bloc had become a failure: “The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. EU regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders. Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity.”
What are the arguments for and against Brexit?
John Redwood, the Conservative former cabinet minister, says that “the referendum should not primarily be about trade and business regulation. It is about our democracy. Do we wish to be an independent, self-governing country or not?”
Mr Redwood suggests the UK could also make more tangible gains: “Both the budget deficit and the current account deficit would fall by 20 per cent, thanks to cancelled EU contributions which we do not get back. The UK could again make the laws it wishes, reclaim control of its migration and borders policy, and regain its own representation on important international councils such as the World Trade Organisation and at climate change conferences.”
Martin Wolf, the FT’s chief economics commentator, maintains that “the UK, with less than 1 per cent of the world’s population and less than 3 per cent of its output, can achieve what it wants more effectively from within the European club”.
He adds that since “voters in the referendum will not know what the objectives of the new negotiations [to break up with the EU] might be and how long they will last . . . a ‘No’ vote would be a leap into the abyss”.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
0
Like
|
Then you blame others for scaremongering but claim it would save "£51 million pounds a day". Please don't make up things as it does your cause no good.
Who is making up things? I never used the word 'save' so it is not I.
The figure is accurate for our payments, and if you are on the board all the time you will know that I analysed the figures previously including reporting the figure for the amount we would save. (after allowing for the EU payments over which we have no control).
Now if I really did want to pull figures out of the air I could estimate the amount EU regulation costs Britain and add it to the ballance. Well qualified analysts quoted by UKIP have done this and come up with a figure several times the £51M. You could say that these people had 'made it up' but even they would have some justification. But I have deliberately not done this so that claims such as the one made can have no basis.
2
Like
|
What would happen if we leave the EU bugger all would happen the EU needs our money and products just same as we need theirs, it is not going to be the end of the world and the illegal immigrants will still be trying to get in to the land of milk and honey the same as before .
6
Like
|
Mmmmm more Outs than Ins and thats asking an expat community who have the most to lose so the writing is on the wall.
Mickey mouse Finn please draw the post that you started to a close its BORING now and is serving no PURPOSE whatsoever YAWN YAWN.
The EU is a disaster was from the begining we are a Great Nation Proud and Strong after all we invented Fish and Chips and lots of other great things
Off to pub thers a great Tina Turner drag act on tonight
Love Hughsie xx
ps voting is now closed
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
3
Like
|
Your observation Mickyfinn “Yes EU Commissioners have effective enforcement and investigatory powers. Enforcement varies depending on the subject matter. Financial loss usually is a priority. “ is an interesting point and begs the question of how the EU currently assesses their priorities.
Here are a few uncomfortable facts with regard to the EU’s lack of protection of citizens’ rights and how the EU prioritorises the effect of judicial institutions on economic growth and development, at the expense of citizens’ rights:
Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly provides that it shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership…….
You say that "at present the EU justice scoreboard that Spain is expected to adhere to, fails to provide an effective mechanism to identify in sufficient detail the instances of consumer abuse and is fundamentally flawed. Therefore EU detection is failing in this regard."
However the report is not meant to "identify...instances of consumer abuse" but to look at the effect of judicial institutions on economic growth and development across the Member States.
You ask "if EU law includes any directive to ensure that a member state has to comply with its own laws and does not act OUTSIDE the rule of law and adheres to the principal of legal certainty?"
The answer is no. However as part of the process of joining the EU, the institutions of a country are assessed against what are now known as the "Copenhagen Criteria", one of which is respect for the rule of law, and Spain would have been assessed as meeting these criteria at its accession in 1986.
Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is accepted (with some reservations) as an essential condition of EU membership. The Convention is not an EU treaty, although the treaties refer to it. It binds signatory states to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (which again is not an EU body). Spain is a signatory and is bound by the ECHR.
However the European Court of Human Rights only has jurisdiction over matters covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Cases in the ECHR have to be against a state, not an individual or company. Moreover you are only allowed to use it when you have exhausted all the possibilities in the legal system in the signatory state (in this case it means going to the Supreme Court of Spain). The Court is strict and unbending on questions of admissibility - and any refusal is for keeps: you are not allowed a second chance. Moreover there is no mechanism for enforcing the judgements - they are dependent on moral authority only.
All of the above, which was identified back in 2014, leads one to believe that EU citizens who are struggling to gain timely and consistent enforcement of EXISTING law (with INALIENABLE RIGHTS no less) are being subjected to consistent repetitious appeals by the Banks until such time as SC doctrine is forthcoming. And worse still, in all too many cases EU citizens are being denied return of costs having gained successful rulings after a decade (and more) of litigation. They are then left at the mercy of Spanish Supreme Court once again (for which you need 2 SC rulings on the exact same legal circumstance to obtain SC doctrine). But even having achieved SC doctrine, to be told that there is no mechanism for enforcement, and citizens remain dependent on judicial moral authority, which as we speak is sadly non existent, just beggars belief.
If this is indicative of the priorities that the EU currently demonstrate with regard to citizens rights, then uncomfortable facts such as these need to be highlighted, alongside other areas of concern, in order that citizens are left in no doubt as to how the protection of their rights currently remains way down in the pecking order of EU’s priorities.
The question arising from this then is how can EU citizens ever be protected from failure to gain consistent Judicial moral authority in EU member states such as Spain?
0
Like
|
Britains was a founder member of GATT in 1947. All members of GATT became part of the WTO when it was formed in 1994. So Britains membership of the WTO in no way depends on membership of the EU as reported.
0
Like
|