Agreed, ads. The problem with this subject is that it seems to bring out the worst in people. Those who advocate IN seem to be relying on the fear factor whilst those advocating OUT seem to make up their facts to fit their ideas.
As I see it, nobody seems to know. Possibly because of a lack of information from both sides. One side says millions of jobs will be lost whilst the other says jobs will be created. There appear to be (I'll be polite) obfuscation from both sides but none are actually coming up with facts about either the in or out will affect us.
I like the post from tteedd but I also feel he has made things up. The pound to euro, for example. At the end of last year and the beginning of this, the pound was doing rather well at 1.43 because it looked like it was a slam dunk to the in crowd. Then the out crowd started doing better and the pound suddenly drops to 1.28 (with predictions of it going down to 1.25). The market hates uncertainty and tteed's opinion that the pound will do better on out is purely that, an opinion.
How about the CAP. Yes, we all know it costs a lot but he says France and S European farmers benefit. Well, looking it up, that is quite wrong. Yes, France gets the most and Spain second but Germany is third, However UK does rather well out of it as well (I hadn't realised the Queen gets 500 million euro a year from it). Also, whilst UK is a net contributor to the EU, only Germany and France are net contributors to the CAP. So, France actually pays more into the CAP than it gets.
I also think we had the original referendum under Ted Heath, not Harold Wilson. Harold signed us up (after he had been rebuffed as had Harold Macmillan) but the referendum to remain was under Heath.
I have also looked up other things because people tell us there is no benefit in EU membership. Really? Water quality and the great beaches and river clean ups we have had throughout Europe have come about by EU directives. The deregulation of the airlines giving us cheap flights have come about by EU directives. Telecomm deregulation ditto.
The outs also tell us that Europe needs us more than we need them because we export 46% to the EU and import 54%. They seem to imply that the 54% is the amount of goods the EU ships to us but it isn't. It is only 9% of the EU export market so UK is not as important as many try to make out. However, I do not believe we would lose that 46% of our exports because they will still want to buy it as much as we will still want to buy their stuff. So, again, is this just people making things up to prove their case?
The problem is, it is such an emotive subject that people will make things up to prove their case whether they are for in or for out. So, yes ads, we do need a BS free list of how either course will affect us but I doubt if we'll ever get it.
I'm with a previous poster. I like the freedom of movement and goods. I like being able to move back and forth with no customs checking on me and not having to pay duty on goods I receive from elsewhere. Yes, we pay more into the EU than we get out of it but I would like someone to explain if jobs do depend on membership and why they don't include financial services in the exports which would put us about level.
Funny old subject. I bet there are more spittle flecked keyboards when this subject comes up than on any other topic, anywhere.
Oh, edited to add
I forgot. I love the old canard about "not being audited". The have been audited and signed off for quite a few years. Despite the British press coming up with the lie, I looked at the actual auditors site which states they have been with caveats. At the last audit (2014) they were signed off with an error rate of 4.2% and the error rate has varied between 3 and 4.8% over the last 7 years, but still audited and signed off. It also compares that error rate with the US budget with an error rate of 5% and the UK welfare budget with an error rate of 5.8%.
So it seems it's perfectly OK to have high error rates but a lower one invokes spluttering and bile because of anti-EU feelings.
From a UK site
Not true. There is a persistent myth (reliably recycled every year by UK newspapers) that the European Court of Auditors has refused to sign off the EU’s accounts, but this is entirely false.
In the most recent audit year (2013), the Court gave a clean bill of health to the accounts for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for. Evidence
According to the European Court of Auditors, around 0.2% of the EU budget may have been subject to fraud. Any amount of possible fraud is unacceptable and needs challenging. But it’s worth noting that the figure of 0.2% is much lower than most national budgets
This message was last edited by mariedav on 21/02/2016.