Benefits of being in/out of the EU?
Discussion
Example from the industry I deal with.
Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
NickGibbs said:
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
That's because it is nonsense! I'd rather be outside these silly rules and competing with the rest of the [growing] economies which don't throttle their economies with eco-claptrap. And these newer economies will be buying more luxury cars in the future, not the deflating EU[SSR].speedy_thrills said:
What do you consider undemocratic about the EU?
Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).
Then the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).
In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.
The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.
Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.
Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.
If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.
So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system
.
I put that into google translate and just like the eu accounts absolutely nothing came up.Broadly speaking Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of individual nation to serve the EC (representative democracy). Then they are assigned portfolios by the Commission President (who is elected by MEPs via representative democracy).
Then the Commission must pass muster in the European parliament as a safeguard to ensure he has acted fairly in assigning portfolios and electorates generally agree with the majority of choices for commissioners. If not then the President can re-shuffle portfolios or request new Commissioners be appointed by elected governments (though, in practise, he has limited choices to work with the people he's been stuck with by elected national governments).
In other words the EC itself is answerable to two elected bodies:
- MEPs elected directly to the European Parliament.
- National governments who appoint Commissioners to the EC.
The EC must then do the day-to-day tasks of drafting bills, setting budgets, conducting trade talks etc.
Then as an additional check bills are passed to the Council of Ministers (which again is appointed by national governments) and European parliament (who can amend, reject or pass). Legislation and budgets must pass both to become law.
Flow diagram that shows who is appointed by elected governments, who is elected directly and how both are involved in the standard process.
If a country is unhappy with commissioner it's up to the electorate to elect another national government that will appoint someone more representative, if electorates were unhappy with MEPs then it's up to electorates to elect new MEPs.
So the EU is a system that combines direct and representative democracy (something we should be very comfortable with in the UK). British people complaining about how undemocratic the EU is should take a look at the UKs electoral and governmental systems. The UK still has archaic hangovers like hereditary peerage, monarchy and runs a FPTP electoral system
.NickGibbs said:
Example from the industry I deal with.
Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
Well worth 55 mil a day plus 1.7 bil due this year then...Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
NickGibbs said:
Example from the industry I deal with.
Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
So being in the EU allowed us to argue about rules we wouldn't have to worry about if we weren't in the EU.Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
oyster said:
Out:
We'd have to have underskilled British layabouts doing jobs for half the productivity of their eastern European cousins, probably demanding far more pay as well.
Why do you think the E.Europeans work so hard?Because they are on 4-5 times what they could earn at home.We'd have to have underskilled British layabouts doing jobs for half the productivity of their eastern European cousins, probably demanding far more pay as well.
I reckon if you quadrupled the minimum wage quite a few "layabouts" would up their productivity.
Funkycoldribena said:
oyster said:
Out:
We'd have to have underskilled British layabouts doing jobs for half the productivity of their eastern European cousins, probably demanding far more pay as well.
Why do you think the E.Europeans work so hard?Because they are on 4-5 times what they could earn at home.We'd have to have underskilled British layabouts doing jobs for half the productivity of their eastern European cousins, probably demanding far more pay as well.
I reckon if you quadrupled the minimum wage quite a few "layabouts" would up their productivity.
vonuber said:
Funkycoldribena said:
Why do you think the E.Europeans work so hard?Because they are on 4-5 times what they could earn at home.
But their costs are UK costs, so it doesn't matter.Bluebarge said:
You might want to look at what is happening to the Chinese economy right now before making too many assumptions. A significant part of our economy will always be dependent on Europe. Your last sentence is nonsense and merely an expression of your own prejudice - the trade deals are negotiated on behalf of, and voted for, by all member states. You could say that the CAP favours France, but then plenty of our farmers do prety well out of it also.
And your comment is an expression of your own prejudice - "negotiated on behalf of and voted for by all member states" ergo not in favour of the UK by definition.CAP does favour France - and look at the UK industry since we entered into the EEC?
Europe's economy also depends on the UK - we are a very strong trading partner - none of which needs to be threatened by an exit from the EU political camp. The EU political side costs a fortune - as a net contributor the UK would be better off outside of this undemocratic organisation. There is no political mechanism for removing EU directives even if they are shown to cause more harm than good - are they really that prefect?
The more I learn about the EU (and read on the Europa website) the less I like the entire concept - EU paid lobbyists seem to dictate the directives and not the will of the EU people in any shape of form - if the people of Europe vote against something the EU change its name and do it anyway - how can any one want to be part of that corrupt monstrosity?
Funkycoldribena said:
BGARK said:
Its down to work ethics, upbringing and discipline. Nothing to do with where you come from or even money sometimes.
If its not for the money why are they coming here?Funkycoldribena said:
NickGibbs said:
Example from the industry I deal with.
Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
Well worth 55 mil a day plus 1.7 bil due this year then...Being in the EU helped Jaguar Land Rover via our government negotiate a higher CO2 limit allowed for its EU-sold cars come the 2020/21 crunch when makers must meet an average of 95g/km or face fines. The JLR average target is 132g/km.
Being PH many will argue that CO2 limits are prime example of EU nonsense, but with the UK in or out JLR would have comply either way because so many of its cars are sold into the region. Being in won the firm some breathing space
amare32 said:
I'm sure someone can shed some light on this but say UK opted out, assuming that the whole of Europe would start to make it as difficult as possible to deal with UK, can't it just trade more with US and Asia?
No it is all just a threat, to scare people, just take a look at the cars on British roads, mainly made in Europe, do you think they would make it difficult for their manufactures to sell goods, because that what would happen in tit for tat tariff imposition on goods from the EU. Trade will carry on, the EU is in such a bad shape it could do nothing else.ralphrj said:
arguti said:
In my mind, EEA members seem to have most of the EU benefits without some of the nonsense.
Do they though?EEA members have the same "four freedoms" as EU members, namely free movement of goods, services, people and capital. So the same trade benefits but also the same immigration issues.
EEA members have to pay to access the EFTA. Their contributions have increased by 1000% over the last 11 years. I suspect the cost to the UK would be less than our current contributions to the EU but not by much (still £billions each year). However, we would no longer have any say in how the EU is run (no MEPs or Commissioners).
EEA members must implement EU laws on social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. So no freedom from "laws from Brussels".
However, we would be outside of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy.
This should be essential reading for any one who is interested in the debate:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/TheNorwegianWay
Jinx said:
Bluebarge said:
The more I learn about the EU (and read on the Europa website) the less I like the entire concept - EU paid lobbyists seem to dictate the directives and not the will of the EU people in any shape of form - if the people of Europe vote against something the EU change its name and do it anyway - how can any one want to be part of that corrupt monstrosity?
Exactly; it's easy to find out how much the EU costs us every day...over £50 million...but isn't it odd that it's not at all easy to see the benefits of being in the EU. If the benefits of being in the EU were clear, we'd have plain and simple facts and figures in front of us. Other countries do very well without being in the EU and so can we. In any case, most of the EU countries are economic basket cases.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff