I, for one, welcome our wildly expensive European overlords.
... and I’m standing here waving the blue flag.
EU to cost 6.4BN
- Thread starter dangerstat
- Start date
... and I’m standing here waving the blue flag.
Even with a free trade agreement, you're still handing a lot of power to EU with the only difference being that you don't get a seat at the table in Brussels to argue for your interests.
In 2006 Switzerland, a non-EU country, had to stump up over 600m Euro to pay for EU expansion if it wanted to keep its trade agreements. There's a lot of attention being given to Switzerland's unhelpful tax regime too now, and the Swiss can't even argue their case in the European parliament.
Freefaller said:
Sums up my feelings too.
A lot less power than we are currently expected to hand over though, and an awful lot less cash.
Switzerland isn't actually a member of the EEA, their arrangement is different again.
For the EEA states, they pay the EEA and Norway grants, which are certainly massively less (1.1bn euros over 5 years between all members) than the £6.4bn (7.1bn euros) annually that we are currently committed to.
I disagree, the EU is the exact opposite of what I want, small government and localised lawmaking is the exact opposite of the EU. In fairness, the US isn't much better these days, but only because it's forgotten its original design.
Over 70% of Switzerland's exports are to the EU, they're reliant on trade agreements re-negotiated periodically. They're in a very weak position and would be absolutely screwed if they couldn't reach an agreement with the EU. Over half our exports are to the EU but at least we're in there, shaping the law-making process. Imo we're in a much more favourable position than Switzerland. I think the Swiss are supposed to have a referendum on joining the EU in the next few year, the last one was quite close IIRC, so will be interesting to see on which side of the bread they think is buttered.
Take hedge funds and private equity as an example, the French and Germans (rightly imo) are quite annoyed at these industries and want to introduce new rules to tightly regulate them. This will have a significant negative effect on Britain's economy, so we get Darth Mandleson on the case and so the regulations get watered down so (unfortunately) they continue to operate basically as before.
Ouch, that's quite a lot given the size of those countries' GDP and that they have no say in how it's spent.
Not really, Norway, for example, has a GDP of $246bn (source) per year.
Their contribution is 567million Euros ($810 million) over 5 years
I make that a gross contribution of about 0.06% of GDP
By contrast, our net 5 year contribution is 0.24% of GDP
That's a massive difference for not much gain apart from increased political interference.
Actually Norway has to implement laws to comply with EU rulings and directives just like the UK does, only they get no say in them at all.She'd better be good then.
Personally I think we should back out of the EU and sign up as Norway has done as part of just the European Economic Area. No tax or visas for business and travel, but no laws and "subsidies" from the EU either.
What have hedge funds and private equity groups done wrong.
Lack of openness and transparency allows people like Madoff to do what they do. Short selling almost bankrupted several companies. Over-leveraging themselves, leveraged buyouts etc, speculating on vital commodities such as food and oil. It all adds to the instability of the financial system.
"Boo the EU, we need freedom!"
"But the EU offer us a lot of protection and freedoms that are Government do not, and it helps prevent our Government from infringing our rights"
"Boo the Government, we need freedom!"
"So... the relationship is actually quite beneficial for us to certain extents, is it not?"
"... FREEDOM!!!!"
"*sigh*"
"But the EU offer us a lot of protection and freedoms that are Government do not, and it helps prevent our Government from infringing our rights"
"Boo the Government, we need freedom!"
"So... the relationship is actually quite beneficial for us to certain extents, is it not?"
"... FREEDOM!!!!"
"*sigh*"
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
I trust an elected government official more than I do an unelected EU one from a country 2000 miles away that does not, and will not ever have my best interests at heart.
Out of the EU. Now.
You are simplifying the issue - the regulation that the European courts have on our own is extremely complicated yet a possitively good thing. What alternative do you propose?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
You're ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room that the majority of EU rule over Britain is by officials unelected by the public. That's called a dictatorship.
Anyway, the European courts are great and their bureaucracy is actually very very cost effective + efficient.
We can access use their services without being ruled over by unelected officials and by all accounts crooks (political protection while seated in the EU parliament!).
Not to mention the gravy train which runs at easily more than £1 million per member per year they're seated in the Espace Léopold.
Nick Griffin and his scumbag mate netting millions of pounds of taxpayers money, it really does make me grin from ear to ear.
Only some of them, specifically the ones related to trade, consumer protection, and free movement of goods/services/people. They are not bound to implement anything else.
Our lack of constitutional protection from tyranny of state and tyranny of majority (through opinion driven rather than fact driven lawmaking) are reasons to strengthen our own constitutional protections and processes, not to expect someone else to do it for us.
If we left how much trade would we actually lose? People who buy Rolls-Royces will still buy them even if they become even more expensive. The French and the Germans may kick up a stink but the French will still want us to buy their wine (Aren't we their largest market for wine?) and the Jerries will want us to buy their blandly efficient automobiles. A tit for tat on British imports will hurt them more. Ireland will always have strong trade links with us too. That won't go away. In fact, leaving the EU could mean we re-strengthen our trade links with the commonwealth which EU law has prevented us from doing (They are very protectionist of their little trade racket). Also, it could lead to us exploring some sort of trade agreement with NAFTA since we have a good relationship with the US (Well, unit Mcaskill decided to release the Libyan terrorist) and Canada. It would save the British fishing industry allowing it to grow for the first time in decades (and simultaneousely replenishing our fish stocks due to the portugese and spanish no longer being allowed to fish in our territorial waters) and would also provide a boost to the shipping ports in the UK as it would no longer make as much financial sense to use Rotterdam as a shipping hub like we do currently. I'll stop it here as it's all starting to get a bit UKIP but I honestly believe that leaving the EU would not be economically harmful, in fact with the reduction in beuracratic redtape and the restoration of sovereign powers it could even be the boost we need.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 3,691
I think its the other way round, the British add the world leader status to the EU. World leader status is all about militry ability and past success, something the rest of the EU is some what lacking. GDP is meaningless when 6+ million people of working age are out of work.