The promise of a referendum after the next election is a fudge. Chances are the Conservatives won't be re-elected so we won't get a say. As a former lawyer in the civil service, the more EU law I studied and saw, the more it reinforced my Eurosceptic views. Apart from the easy targets (waste, corruption, the noxious effects of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries policies, the operation of the European Arrest Warrant) sometimes the problem is the way the EU institutions (the Commission - the EU Civil Service - or the elected Parliament, or the European Court of Justice) stretch a superficially reasonable sounding concept to absurd extremes, losing touch with reality. This applies as much to legislation on the "single market" (the common market that many UK Eurosceptics like to claim is what the UK signed up for, although given the language of "ever closer union" in EU fundamental treaties, alarm bells should have been ringing long ago) such as the "state aid" rules against taxpayer subsidies to industry, as to the social, environmental or justice and home affairs rules which are more commonly the subject of UK Eurosceptic media angst. Consider the Gender Discrimination Directive judgment which now prohibits insurance companies from taking gender into account in pricing insurance (including car and bike insurance) even if there is objective evidence that men and women present different risks! Prohibiting discrimination on irrelevant grounds is fine, but prohibiting insurers from taking commercial decisions based on objective evidence about longevity, accident rates etc seems absurd. I have to say I'm doubtful about claims that foreign trade would grind to a halt and the economy in the UK would be crippled if we were to leave the EU - Switzerland and Norway for example are outside the EU but don't seem to be doing too badly - and there's an awful lot of world outside Europe with whom we could trade - the growing economies of Brazil, India, China etc as well as the US and Australia.
I'm not qualified. A-hem, sorry. I'm not qualified to take issue with anything MrsC_772 has said up there ^^^ except that I will comment on the issue of insurance. Insurance is indeed a business, and business should normally be allowed a certain latitude with how they make decisions. But insurance is also a social construct above and beyond its business connotations. Consider that in many (most?) cases, car insurance is not a service provided to customers, it is a legal requirement imposed upon a car-driving population. Right there, you have a reason why normal business practices and conventions do not apply to the model. I, as a male, may decide that insurance is not cost effective to me, on the basis that my gender disadvantages me. Can I choose to elect not to insure myself? No. Furthermore, I am certain that insurance companies would refuse to insure car owners based upon where they live, if they could get away with it. Some insurers already refuse to insure certain types of vehicle - personal experience. Consider health insurance. Certain people, of certain lifestyles, would be excluded from obtaining any form of health insurance but for legislation in place to protect their rights. Insurance is a business but it isn't a business. It's a social construct.
Steve, that malt stuff will still be european though. THe Scottish parliament will go to europe and turn it's back on the Union.
no it won't. The Scots aren't stupid. What I've seen leads me to believe that some of them think we English are tho.
Your possibly right in general the world won't fall in if we leave but Norway as an example pay a huge fee to trade in the common market scheme on the same terms but not be a member. Their gain by being out is not a monetary one or they wouldn't pay a huge lump to be in via the back door. Norway are also considerably richer than the UK as a country and population and do not need the farming subsidies etc. By and large to me Cameron has the right approach if that is what he delivers. As in, a continued trade agreement with some repatriation of powers. Whether it can be delivered is the big IF.
What is the measure used to compare the Uk and Norway? It cannot be GDP, as the UK is 7th in the list for 2011 and Norway 25th (according to the UN)
Interesting example. Norway happens to have vast wealth from gas and oil resources, and a small population (5 million). If they had joined the EU, Norway would have had to make a larger net contribution every year than any other member state pro rata. Even so, they applied to join, negotiated terms of accession, and only decided not to join after all by a small margin in a 1994 referendum. Norway can easily afford to pay the substantial penalty of not being in the single market, not being in the CAP, etc, and has hardly any manufactured exports anyway. Britain's position is entirely different.
Does GDP take into account national debt and the interest payments thereon? If not, GDP is about as useful a measure of the economic health of a country as a dowsing stick.
That is interesting. "Common wisdom" is that Britain has no manufacturing industry and thus cannot export anything. Your statement above appears to contradict this. I suspect that what you are saying is closer to the truth and that Britain does indeed manufacture goods for export. Who knew? Heh.
No of course not. GDP is a measure of the total goods and services produced by a country in a year. Government finances concern (among other things): National debt, which is the sum of money owed by the government of a country accumulated down many years and without regard to assets owned; and Interest payments which are part of the balance of government income and expenditure each year. These various figures are all useful, but they measure entirely different types of things.
Well, there you are, that probably explains how Norway (with a lower GDP) is richer than Britain (which is broke :wink
That's confusing, then. I am a little too weary to work out why GDP per head is the measure for a member state's contribution as opposed to straight GDP. The permutations are presently beyond my current brain cell:red wine ratio based capabilities. :smile:
GDP per head could be an indicator for contributions per head. Total GDP could be an indicator for total contributions. By the way, "contributions" to the EU does not mean writing a cheque and posting it to Brussels. VAT is an EU-wide tax and a part of all the VAT collected in all member states goes to the EU; that is where most EU income comes from. It is 1% of total GDP. As goods and services pass between member states all the time on a vast scale, it is not possible to say precisely whether the VAT on those goods and services is part of the contribution of this state or that state. So figures for state contributions are obviously approximations.
Right. Contribution to the EU is based upon GDP per head. Approximately. I imagine that the principality of Sealand is not considering joining the EU anytime soon.
I'll vote for "out". That's based solely on personal experience of travelling/working in Europe since 1978. Some positives,(reduced Customs paperwork/single currency etc),outweighed by many negatives. I appreciate there are many others who see it differently,but not for me,thanks.
for me im shure we put more than we get out, i would like sombody to explain what are the benifits , and please dont say trade as you can't tell me that the rest of europe would stop trading with us , if you have somthing good to sell you will sell it
I travel Spain a fair bit and have lots of friends there. The biggest problem i see and it's one they acknowledge is that they are vastly over priced currently. Spain really need to de value their currency to make holidays, villas etc more affordable to non euro visitors. As a Euro member they cannot do that and basically suffer a currency largely propped artifically high by Germany. As the pound is now even more in decline against the Euro it's getting increasingly worse = Less visitors, but we are more competitive against them trade wise.
