What has the EU done to you?

[Caulkhead]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Oh yes? You show me where it says that.

Any party can stand on a republican ticket at a UK general election, gain a majority in the commons and legislate to abolish the monarchy if a majority of the electorate agree.

Ozzie Osmond said:

That really is nonsense. UK has exactly the same input as other member states.

I didn't say the UK, I said 'we'. When was the last time UK voters had a meaningful opportunity to influence the EU? We are a minority in a sea of socialists following the socialist ideal of a centrally controlled EU.

Ozzie Osmond said:

I'm afraid you're displaying your ignorance there. For instance, "Welsh identifiable public spending per head broke the £10,000 barrier for the first time in 2010-11. At the same time the Welsh population passed the three million mark mid-2010."

3,000,000,000 people at £10,000 = £30bn spent in Wales alone. That's just one small region of UK and a big slug of that spend is net cost. Hence Wales, unlike Scotland, isn't bleating for independence. Add in the other naff UK regions and it puts the EU figure into perspective.

I'm afraid you're showing your ignorance here. The £65bn I quote is a net figure calculated by the Bruges Group showing the net cost per annum to the UK of EU membership. Net means the end result after subtracting what we get from what we give. Your figures are only half the story, you only quote what we give, a gross figure. For them to be comparable with my figures you must subtract what we get back because as far as I'm aware people and companies in South Wales still have to pay taxes. Get back to me when you have the full figures as I've given.

Ozzie Osmond said:

No comment, in view of your failures above.

As I say, the EU likes its citizens to be sheep who don't understand their own constitution, are happy to have legislation handed down from on high and don't understand how a simple set of accounts work.

[markcoznottz]

One thing. Stop uncontrolled movement of labour across borders into trades with low barriers of entry, eg hotel, cleaning, security, etc. Absolute lunacy, you might as well retire the whole unskilled british workforce. A race to the bottom if there ever was one. By all means import quotas of skilled workers eg Kenyan nurses, but we certainly do not need endless hand car wash centres opening up.

These guardian reading types may feel sorry for Eastern Europeans, but I and many others couldn't give a flying fk to be honest. I don't agree with people coming over here having access to our 'society' ie police nhs etc, social services, when thier home country doesnt have these things. Look after your own.

[glazbagun]

The common fisheries policy pisses me off.

[anonymous-user]

glazbagun said:

The common fisheries policy pisses me off.

I wonder what other resources which are seen as finite or in decline have been collectively pooled and restricted in such a way, gas, oil, coal?

[AJS-]

It's not really about what the EU has done, it's about what it means.

It means that we have no real democratic control over the laws we haev to live by or the country we live in. This is the only really important point. Governments can screw things up - they do it all the time, but when they are not subject to scrutiny and control by the public then they don't suffer any consequences for screwing things up, and nearly everywhere in the world that this happens the result is a worse government, and a population who are poorer and more miserable.

[Ozzie Osmond]

AJS- said:

It means that we have no real democratic control over the laws we haev to live by or the country we live in. This is the only really important point.

That really is nonsense.

• You might as well say people in Manchester have no control over laws made in Westminster.
• If the people living in EU aren't in control of it, who do you think is?
• If a little country like UK leaves the EU it will still have to comply with all the EU regulations in order to be able to trade with its biggest trading partner - the EU.

Most significantly for your democratic panic, if UK leaves EU it will then have to comply with EU rules over which it has no control whatsoever, which is much LESS democratic.

[The Don of Croy]

Ozzie Osmond said:

That really is nonsense.

• You might as well say people in Manchester have no control over laws made in Westminster.
• If the people living in EU aren't in control of it, who do you think is?
• If a little country like UK leaves the EU it will still have to comply with all the EU regulations in order to be able to trade with its biggest trading partner - the EU.

Most significantly for your democratic panic, if UK leaves EU it will then have to comply with EU rules over which it has no control whatsoever, which is much LESS democratic.

You'll probably not thank me for this, but do read Booker in yesterday's Torygraph. He makes a good point about how much of the current set of trans-national regulations are originated by the WTO, ILO etc. most of which are centred in Switzerland (not an EU member).

And recent trade figures dispute the case that the EU is our largest trading partner.

jus' sayin...

[JensenA]

Ozzie Osmond said:

That really is nonsense.

• You might as well say people in Manchester have no control over laws made in Westminster.
• If the people living in EU aren't in control of it, who do you think is?
• If a little country like UK leaves the EU it will still have to comply with all the EU regulations in order to be able to trade with its biggest trading partner - the EU.

Most significantly for your democratic panic, if UK leaves EU it will then have to comply with EU rules over which it has no control whatsoever, which is much LESS democratic.

You live in a dream world Ozzie - The EU is undemocratic, the people in the EU are NOT in control of the EU, The EU is not elected, Or do you still believe they are elected?

[powerstroke]

markcoznottz said:

One thing. Stop uncontrolled movement of labour across borders into trades with low barriers of entry, eg hotel, cleaning, security, etc. Absolute lunacy, you might as well retire the whole unskilled british workforce. A race to the bottom if there ever was one. By all means import quotas of skilled workers eg Kenyan nurses, but we certainly do not need endless hand car wash centres opening up.

These guardian reading types may feel sorry for Eastern Europeans, but I and many others couldn't give a flying fk to be honest. I don't agree with people coming over here having access to our 'society' ie police nhs etc, social services, when thier home country doesnt have these things. Look after your own.

Yes this is the real problem it will continue to have a bigger and bigger affect on people higher up the pay scale the police starting pay is a good example, uncontroled immigration is the bigest threat to all but people at the top to our standard of living,

Edited by powerstroke on Monday 28th January 12:37

[AJS-]

AJS- said:

It's not really about what the EU has done, it's about what it means.

It means that we have no real democratic control over the laws we haev to live by or the country we live in. This is the only really important point. Governments can screw things up - they do it all the time, but when they are not subject to scrutiny and control by the public then they don't suffer any consequences for screwing things up, and nearly everywhere in the world that this happens the result is a worse government, and a population who are poorer and more miserable.

What has it got to do with Manchester? The UK has a parliamentary democracy, the EU does not.

The EU is controlled by a small clique of politicians and appointees. Are they elected? Did I miss it?

In what sense would we still have to apply with EU regulations if we were outside? This is simply false.

[oyster]

einsign said:

simoid said:

Er, not taking into account the benefits.

There are no benefits, only negatives, its that simple.

If I was to reply saying there were no negatives, only benefits - would you say I was constructing a mature, reasoned argument?

[einsign]

oyster said:

If I was to reply saying there were no negatives, only benefits - would you say I was constructing a mature, reasoned argument?

Can you list the positives please. As a business owner who manufactures and exports products made in this country I would be keen to know?

[Caulkhead]

Bedazzled said:

Caulkhead said:

The £65bn I quote is a net figure calculated by the Bruges Group showing the net cost per annum to the UK of EU membership.

The net contribution of EU membership is probably £8-10B per year, depending on which figures you trust.

Your £65B also includes indirect costs... half of it is an estimate of 2% of GDP for businesses to comply with EU red-tape, apportioning half the cost for all regulation to EU membership because "half the laws passed were EU ones". Then there's 1% of GDP for additional food costs as a result of the CAP, etc.

Using a tiny muliplier on a huge number is like trying to get a business case through on the basis it will "improve sales by 1%".

Could you link to your source please?

[Ozzie Osmond]

JensenA said:

You live in a dream world Ozzie - The EU is undemocratic, the people in the EU are NOT in control of the EU, The EU is not elected, Or do you still believe they are elected?

Well who on earth do you think is running it?

"The European Parliament is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union. Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the European Commission, it exercises the legislative function of the EU and it has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world. The Parliament is currently composed of 754 Members of the European Parliament, who represent the second largest democratic electorate in the world (after the Parliament of India) and the largest trans-national democratic electorate in the world (375 million eligible voters in 2009)." - Wikipedia

[grumbledoak]

Openly disingenuous. You've gotta be on that gravy train yourself.

[Caulkhead]

Bedazzled said:

Caulkhead said:

Could you link to your source please?

The assumptions are in the Bruges Group report you mentioned, section 5 here.

Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) EU net contribution forecast summarised here.

Also have a look at the Pink Book 2012 chapter 9 here for the EU trade deficit!

Indeed they are, that's why I asked:

From the Bruges Group Report, section 5, page 26, tables 13 and 14:

Gross cost the the UK of EU membership 2007 - £64.135bn 2008 - £65.675bn
Net cost to the UK of EU membership 2007 - £55.4bn 2008 - £55.775bn
2008 net cost per man woman and child per annum - £915 Per UK tax payer - £1799

So how do you make it £8-10bn net per year when the only independent study shows it to be at least £55.4bn net per annum?

[Caulkhead]

Ozzie Osmond said:

JensenA said:

You live in a dream world Ozzie - The EU is undemocratic, the people in the EU are NOT in control of the EU, The EU is not elected, Or do you still believe they are elected?

Well who on earth do you think is running it?

"The European Parliament is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union. Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the European Commission, it exercises the legislative function of the EU and it has been described as one of the most powerful legislatures in the world. The Parliament is currently composed of 754 Members of the European Parliament, who represent the second largest democratic electorate in the world (after the Parliament of India) and the largest trans-national democratic electorate in the world (375 million eligible voters in 2009)." - Wikipedia

That's one MEP for around every 900,000 people. If the commons sacked 577 MP's and left 73 MPs representing the whole country would you consider that more or less democratic?

Now a question for you, there are over half a billion people in the EU - how many have had the opportunity to vote whether they want to be in the EU or not?

[smegmore]

Ozzie Osmond said:

That really is nonsense.

• You might as well say people in Manchester have no control over laws made in Westminster.
• If the people living in EU aren't in control of it, who do you think is?
• If a little country like UK leaves the EU it will still have to comply with all the EU regulations in order to be able to trade with its biggest trading partner - the EU.

Most significantly for your democratic panic, if UK leaves EU it will then have to comply with EU rules over which it has no control whatsoever, which is much LESS democratic.

You are Ken Clarke AICMFP.

[s2art]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Most significantly for your democratic panic, if UK leaves EU it will then have to comply with EU rules over which it has no control whatsoever, which is much LESS democratic.

Wrong.

I suggest you read this; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9828433/Forget-...

Here is a snippet.

'Last week, I referred to an Efta report that shows that more than 90 per cent of the regulations of the single market cover policy areas that are ultimately the province of global bodies, from the immense array of technical standards to the rules governing accountancy and the compiling of official statistics. Not only does Norway, acting in its own right, enjoy more influence on these international policy bodies than Britain; it also, as a member of Efta and the European Economic Area, even reserves the right to opt out of single-market rules that it considers damaging to its national interest.

When Royal Mail was forced by Brussels to put its bulk mail of items below 50g out to tender (thus costing it the most lucrative part of its business), Norway, realising that this would render its own postal service unviable, refused to comply.

Similarly, Norway is refusing to comply with new single-market regulations on the safety of oil rigs. Meanwhile, our own oil and gas industry says that it is “extremely concerned” that the EU rules will “dismantle the UK’s world-class safety regime, which is built on decades of experience”. Although the UK Government agrees, it is likely to be outvoted in Brussels and our industry will have to obey. (For further details on this and other examples, see Richard North’s EU Referendum blog.)'

[Caulkhead]

Bedazzled said:

Caulkhead said:

So how do you make it £8-10bn net per year when the only independent study shows it to be at least £55.4bn net per annum?

They are two different measures of "net contribution", the £8-10B figure is direct costs, while the other total includes indirect costs (NB it also includes the same £8B, see items 1+2 in table 15). There will be some indirect costs but I don't agree with how they are estimated in that report (section 4).

You haven't read the Bruges Report, or you've read it and not understood it.