Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The biggest problem with eu compliance is that being used against us down the line.
There are a lot of occasions when international interference has been detrimental to the British economy and there are a lot of occasions where international interference was purely to keep britain at a disadvantage internationally - but keeping the eu running is good for business generally which is probably why we supply funds in the quantity we do (and then claim it back for some reason?)

Overall theres a bit too much 'politiking' and 'politricks' on both sides for a coherent decision to be made eigther way with many external interests showing their ugly faces and skew the result/concequences to thier design.
I don't think people are getting the idea that making a united system of states could have a maximum geographical or numerical size without serious dissent among the people slowing the decision making process and rendering it useless.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
EU..... You mean the Eu that alone wastes 10's of millions on the second parliament millions moving, renting trains, when it already has one parliament.... That's just the start of things....

Its stupidity runs deep.

No other such country runs that wasteful extra in modern day and age.

Indeed - more than a hundred Million punds a year just to please the French.

Cameron should have been addressing this sort of corruption rather the nonsense he has come back with - likely got a nice cushy job in the Eurozone linned up when he finishes his term of office

100 million for that!

You could build 5 top of line schools for that....with all latest tech and systems for the digital age.

Total waste of money. One, or the other, choose EU.

I think the money we put into the EU might be a big talking point. If Cameron wasn't eyeing up a EU job for his "retirement", I imagine he could make a lot of people who are unhappy with the dreaded "Austerity Cuts" quite happy if he saved the membership fee instead of cutting important stuff. In my opinion, it's a bit like the aid budget - why are we splurging away all that money when every other part of the government is having to find savings everywhere they can?
But of course, Cameron wants to stay in, hence the charade with the "negotiations", where he asked for nothing and got half of what he asked for.

I'm pro "Out" (as you may have guessed), and I do think that some people who are pro-"Out" are concerned about being labeled as closed-minded or nationalistic or whatever, and are deliberately staying quiet. A bit like in the last election: I didn't hear many people admit to being conservative voters, but they certainly seem to exist.

I do think the debate is going to get very nasty, and I expect we'll get some lovely scarmongering, muck-slinging and probably a few wince-worthy gaffes by the end of it.

If they leave there'll literally be no benefit to maintaining my UK citizenship.

The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.

Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

 Da Boss wrote:
The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.

Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

Thank you I have read it - and noted that yet again this is all about France and supporting its farmers at the expense of our taxpayers. The rebate was specifically put in due to the vast sums of money received by the French as part of the CAP and which they now want us to pay for.

Every body has special exceptions and deals with the EU - some in the open - others less so.............

Many people see the EU - in particular its institutions, as intrusive, parasitic, unaccountable and anti-democratic even compared to our own parliament which is not exactly well regarded.

Borris has swung and joined no camp.

Between him, farrage and even Galloway, despite thinking him a odious Traitor at times, the no campaign has already got 3 big names over a wide base.

Gove has joined in with no to.

It's warming up.

 Da Boss wrote:
The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.

Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

The rebate occurred because the Uk was overcharged in fees by the EEC and got a poor return on investment. Thatcher fixed that.
Again France doesn't have these problems.

 Da Boss wrote:
The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.

Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

Europe needs to do more reform its agricultural policy particularly with regard to CAP. I think the rebate is pretty stupid but since there is no real pressure to reform the budget from inside the rebate remains a tool for negotiation.

As sad and petty as that may seem that is how the EU works - much like all bureaucracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Borris has swung and joined no camp.

Between him, farrage and even Galloway, despite thinking him a odious Traitor at times, the no campaign has already got 3 big names over a wide base.

Gove has joined in with no to.

It's warming up.

Galloway is a fething idiot, more so than farrage. The No campaign should distance itself from that weasel at every opportunity.

The UK has more opt outs and special exceptions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

If you think the Rebate is fair enough, grand- it forces the French to pay more for the CAP. Perhaps that is fair. So the French get to have the second Parliament. Compromise and fudge is needed in an organisation this size, unfortunately.

What I am attacking is the notion that the UK is somehow unfairly picked on and bullied by other member states. It's a load of bollocks - you've had more bending over backwards for ye than anyone else, it's all on record. And you've secured yet more.

It's very frustrating to see this sort of attitude, because it is at odds with observable reality. This manufactured sense of grievance is to me the most offputting thing about Brexiteers.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I think the money we put into the EU might be a big talking point. If Cameron wasn't eyeing up a EU job for his "retirement",

Do you have even the remotest evidence to back that up. The EU has never been happy with Cameron. It was Blair who made the sell out moves to get EU official status and hat was mostly to guarantee escape from prosecution.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:

I imagine he could make a lot of people who are unhappy with the dreaded "Austerity Cuts" quite happy if he saved the membership fee instead of cutting important stuff. In my opinion,

in or out austerity must continue. Gordon Brown fethed up the economy in 2008 he left us with spralling debt that will take thee generations to clear. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't work.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:

it's a bit like the aid budget - why are we splurging away all that money when every other part of the government is having to find savings everywhere they can?

Officially because its poltically correct to give away in aid. In reality this is where the real Tory gravy train is. I dont like that one either.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:

But of course, Cameron wants to stay in, hence the charade with the "negotiations", where he asked for nothing and got half of what he asked for.

Even th Guardian not exactly a Tory rag recognises that the concesions Cameron is getting are real.
He is not getting the concessions people on barstools want:
"Hello Mr Cameron, we recognise that we have been embezzling billions in EU funds through our commissions. It was wrong and we will stop."

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:

I'm pro "Out" (as you may have guessed), and I do think that some people who are pro-"Out" are concerned about being labeled as closed-minded or nationalistic or whatever, and are deliberately staying quiet. A bit like in the last election: I didn't hear many people admit to being conservative voters, but they certainly seem to exist..

I am pro-In, but I see what you are saying and decry the labelling. Be proud of being from another European country you are a patriot of that country, be proud of being ethnic you are expressing your cultural divrsity. Be proud of being British and its 'closed minded bigoted Little Britainer'.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:

I do think the debate is going to get very nasty, and I expect we'll get some lovely scarmongering, muck-slinging and probably a few wince-worthy gaffes by the end of it.

Likely, but when one side says 'scaremongering', it may just be the other side exposing their hogwash and lies.
That being said I don't like Cameron's comments of late. Leave the EU and <insert problem here>. Most of them don't wash.

Our parliament is bad, but its ours. It is made of our elected representatives and existed in some fporm or another for getting on to 800-900 years.

EU is a new invention, its new and in a short time stripped us of !uch of our powers. Very quickly.

Given a few decades our ainciant right to decide own laws will be gone. How long before they demand our military, diplomatic and financial policey to being whole EU on one slate.

Vote yes, and we NEVER leave the EU. We will be absorbed for good or I'll with no way out.

 Da Boss wrote:


What I am attacking is the notion that the UK is somehow unfairly picked on and bullied by other member states. It's a load of bollocks - you've had more bending over backwards for ye than anyone else, it's all on record. And you've secured yet more.

No one (rational) is making the claim. What the EU does to the UK is legal, The problem is not hat it is heavy handed towards the UK but that it turns a blind eye elsewhere if regulations are ignored.

Let me give you an example. EU directives on Abattoirs.

The UK meat industry had a complaint that DEFRA wee forced to enforce EU restrictions on abattoirs, this as in th late 80's while elsewhere in the EU the legislation was not enforced. Because it was largely unimplemented elsewhere the EU thought thy could 'painlessly' amend the legislation. This meant that new build abattoirs in the Uk had to b part demolished in order to fit the new regulations, with no compensation for either set of changes.
What offended the meat industry most of all as that a lot of the inspectors were Spanish veterinarians hired by DEFRA to oversee the procedure. These veterinarians would issue fins for non compliance on any part of the EU directive. Yet most of the Spanish met industry had completely disregarded that EU directive, and the EU had ignored that they had done so.

 Da Boss wrote:

It's very frustrating to see this sort of attitude, because it is at odds with observable reality. This manufactured sense of grievance is to me the most offputting thing about Brexiteers.

The greivances the UK has over uneven implementation of EU directives is valid and well documented.

Calais migrant camps is a good and crystal clear example of that. Were Calais in the UK the EU would be telling us to process the refugees according to EU law, and the EU courts would be enforcing this, as they have done on immigration cases within the UK of people we didn't want here. Have they, will they, do they make the same demand of France. Of course not. Don't be silly.
Observable reality shows that the UK doesn't get even treatment in the EU. To get anything we need to fight for it, and that depends on the size of the stones of the Prime Minister at the time. Cameron for all his many faults isnt that bad a negotiator. Blair an Thatcher were excellent negotiators, though Blair was entirely concerned with himself and sold out the UK for personal advantage on numerous ocasions. Cameron, Major and Thatcher didn't do that. Brown was 100% useless and was walked all over in Brussels and Washington.
Other major EU economies, plus Benelux don't have to play that game the EU itself ensures those core countries needs are considered regardless of who is in power. The club med economies and Ireland are add ons with little authority. The UK is the odd man out because its a major economy but has no real seat at the able of EU decision making unless it muscles one.

 Da Boss wrote:
The UK has a bunch of exceptions and special deals with the EU, and has recently negotiated yet more. The constant whining about ill treatment that actually stems from poor diplomacy or selective reporting leads to a fairly common impression in the rest of Europe that you guys are a bunch of neurotic, misinformed crybabies.

Possibly the most significant of these special deals is the UK Rebate. If you are whining about costs to please France, please read at least the Wiki page on the Rebate and get back to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

I am curious. What 'special deals' are there other than the rebate?

I should also note here that I don't feel the rebate to be particularly 'special'. As noted with the budget above, we put in far, far more money than we get back. Telling me that because we negotiated to get a little bit of that large sum back makes us 'special', well.....by that logic, that multiplicity of countries who get back far more than they put in are infinitely more 'special' than us in that regard?

 Da Boss wrote:
The UK has more opt outs and special exceptions than ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

If you think the Rebate is fair enough, grand- it forces the French to pay more for the CAP. Perhaps that is fair. So the French get to have the second Parliament. Compromise and fudge is needed in an organisation this size, unfortunately.

What I am attacking is the notion that the UK is somehow unfairly picked on and bullied by other member states. It's a load of bollocks - you've had more bending over backwards for ye than anyone else, it's all on record. And you've secured yet more.

It's very frustrating to see this sort of attitude, because it is at odds with observable reality. This manufactured sense of grievance is to me the most offputting thing about Brexiteers.

Please prove the statement rather than using the same rhetoric you proclaim to dislike.

If the French pay most for the CAP then its obviously fine because they get the most benefit, so why do you feel they need to exploit the EU by having 2 parliaments - are you really trying to justify this pathetic state of affairs that to many people is symptomatic of the massive waste and corruption at the heart of the EU institutions. No one other than the French wants this - event the Euro MPs don't want it.

Please explain why the Eurocrats don't have full accountability in their expenses and other matters - again at the direct expense of the EU and importantly (to us at lest) the uk taxpayer.

We are net contributor to the EU - unlike most nations within it and should be respected as such.

Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration.

You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.

Special deals? You've got a variety of Opt Outs, Opt Ins and so on. On Schengen, on currency etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union

The idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe is bull. If you've alienated yourselves through burning political and diplomatic capital, that is a separate issue.

 Da Boss wrote:


The idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe is bull.

We quoted facts and examples. What evidence have you quoted?

 Da Boss wrote:

If you've alienated yourselves through burning political and diplomatic capital, that is a separate issue.

The Uk hasnt alienated itself. If you and others hate the UK, it's racism talking. Your moral problem, not ours.

 Da Boss wrote:
Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration.

You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.

Special deals? You've got a variety of Opt Outs, Opt Ins and so on. On Schengen, on currency etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union

The idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe is bull. If you've alienated yourselves through burning political and diplomatic capital, that is a separate issue.

Errr.....I'll be honest, if you're equating us choosing not to join Schengen or the Euro as 'special deals', you probably won't get a very good reception. Primarily because from our (or my perspective at least), us deciding not to follow on with something that we're not legally obliged to do isn't quite in the same boat as issues of 'favouritism' or 'commercial advantage' (we were talking about that, so I'm assuming that's what your contribution was aimed at).

The same with the rebate, we understand we're going to pay more than we're going to get out, but being told we're getting 'special' treatment for the honour of keeping some of our own money grates a bit. Technically, you are correct. If Poland struck some kind of metaphorical oil, they'd be expected to share it, whilst we wouldn't so much. But technicalities, future variables and hypotheticals aside, in the current day/system, it's not so much an advantage to us as a correction of disadvantage.

I would still be interested if you can point out exception/'special deals' that are of unique advantage to us from the EU that nobody else possesses though.

Special deals? You've got a variety of Opt Outs, Opt Ins and so on. On Schengen, on currency etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union

None of which give us any money and a number of other countries have the same or similar opt outs of specific areas as noted in the same article - I guess they are all whners as they do not implement the Eurocrats demands unconditionally.

As others have outlined - there are plenty of much more dubious "understandings" which directly and economically benefit Eurozone countries.

Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration. You invest a little, you get a lot back. That's the idea of the funds, and they have been extremely successful.

This investment has been a byword for corruption since day one. Whilst its good for Germany in particular which benefitted from a massive rebuilding fund from other nations after the war and has gone from strength to strength since - it is debatable whether its actually benefitted the nations and their citizens or just the corrupt elements in them and the EU hierarchy.

I am not against migration - the Uk has always befitted from immigration over the millennia - however if the above had actually worked then there would be less economic migration from the Eurozone.

I'll say again. I'm not a fan of our rebate but without it there is not even a sniff of a chance for reorganisation of EU finances, the same as some of our other so called special privileges.

If we are seen as neurotic cry babies it is because the spin put out by other governments and the EU. Done to gloss over many of the glaring inefficiencies and corrupt practices that take place within them.

Whats good for the Goose should be good for the Gander.

For myself, my opposition to the EU stems not from jobs won or lost or how much money we get back from rebates or CAP or lightbulbs or whatever!

Democracy, and the people's right to exercise that democracy is why I'll be voting no.

Ever since the EU referendum starting gun was fired on Saturday, I have witnessed rank after rank of big business and banks declare their support for the EU. They cite jobs, market confidence, the bottom line, and yet, nowhere was there even a hint of the democratic case for staying IN or leaving the EU.

That corporate interests are shamefully waving the flag for their own vested interests is reason enough for me to vote no. They don't give a damn about the impact of closer union on ordinary people, and I don't give a damn about them!

They have their 5 year plans, I have mine.

In my travels around Europe, I have witnessed Italy and Greece put to the sword, Spain struggle with massive youth unemployment, and a refugee crisis spiral out of control. The Ukraine fiasco is proof enough that the EU should not be allowed within a million miles of having its own foreign policy.

A blind man could see that the EU needs reform, that it needs to be more nimble and flexible to react to a changing world, but they resist reform at every opportunity.

I don't doubt the good intentions of those behind the European project, but the technocrats have taken over - decisions and deals seem to be done behind closed doors. It's getting too corporate for me, too undemocratic.

When David Cameron went to Brussels to thrash out a 'deal.' he met with the President of the EU commission, The President of the EU Parliament, and various other flunkies. It was a bloated mess of pen pushers and bureaucrats. Who are these people? I follow politics closely, and I was stumped

I like Europe, and the European people, but the logical conclusion of the EU is a united states of Europe, and I'll be damned if we surrender our nation's sovereignty to a bunch of Brussels' pen pushers.

The UK exemption from the Working Time Directive, the UK exemption from the Units of Measurement Directive, and the UK opt-out from Schengen are all examples of special treatment for the UK compared to the rest of Europe. (Eire also opted out of Schengen.)

Mr Morden: I am against special treatment of any one nation, including the stupid parliament building. What I am arguing against here is the idea that the UK is somehow uniquely disadvantaged in Europe, it is plainly not true. Ireland has several opt outs (all of which I personally disagree with - most are there only to allow discrimination against non-Catholics). But we are not whining about being mistreated by "Europe" half as much as the UK.

Orlanth: I've also given facts and examples. Go and read them.
Just because you guys think Rebate is fair dinkum does not make it any less special treatment for the UK that no one else gets. You can spin it however you like but other countries are not receiving it, only the UK.

Ketara: Technically I am correct? Surely you mean "I am correct". and it is not my fault if your perceptions are skewed by a eurosceptic press that inflates the sense of grievance to ridiculous levels.

I will post some more later - class just arrived so I better get teaching!

Mr Morden: To be honest, the press in the EU countries I've been in has been pretty restrained about the UK, and the governments generally even more so. But lots of us read your media, and what we see there makes us shake our heads in disgust.


To be really clear, I think there is a very strong case for the UK leaving the EU. The EU is progressing towards Federalisation, and you guys want no part of that. So perhaps it's better for ye to leave rather than sit on the sidelines carping and trying to block things like the Financial Transaction Tax and so on. The reasons for leaving are ideological rather than practical, and I think that's totally valid and okay.

What gets my back up is misinformation and negative propaganda thrown at the EU.

 Da Boss wrote:


Ketara: Technically I am correct? Surely you mean "I am correct". and it is not my fault if your perceptions are skewed by a eurosceptic press that inflates the sense of grievance to ridiculous levels.

You are technically correct that it is an exception. Whether or not it is an advantage or a partial rectification of a disadvantage is a matter of both perspective and context.

For example, the rebate is something that could potentially (in the future) be an advantage if we fall into being one of the worse economies in the EU, as it would permit us to extract extra cash that a poorer country would not, and the new richer countries would not get that rebate(freeing up more for us). As things stand, this is not the case however, so it cannot be described as an advantage. An exception yes. An advantage, no.

In the current circumstance, we are at a disadvantage as one of the primary gravy train providers for the EU, in that we put far more in then we get back. It is accepted that you have to put something into the EU (those MP meal expenses don't pay themselves) to keep it functioning. But we provide such a large sum of income that we see very little return from. In that regard, we are at a disadvantage compared to smaller countries, who get to extract more money than they put in. Therefore the rebate merely lessens the level of disadvantage currently in existence in that budgetary relationship. Despite the rebate though, we are still disadvantaged in that regard however, because we still put in far more money than we receive back in value (in purely financial considerations).

The rebate is a response to the EU budget, and has to be seen in the context of it. 'Eurosceptic presses' really have nothing to do with it. I'd appreciate it if we stuck to the facts and left the suppositions about each others views and reading materials out?

 Da Boss wrote:


Orlanth: I've also given facts and examples. Go and read them.
Just because you guys think Rebate is fair dinkum does not make it any less special treatment for the UK that no one else gets. You can spin it however you like but other countries are not receiving it, only the UK.

The rebate exists BECAUSE the UK as overcontributing to the EU and on not receiving much in the way of benefits. Other countries need no rebate either because the EU plays fair with them (e.g. France) or they are a net recipient (e.g Greece). The UK alone was expected to pay up and not get a fair deal Thatcher gave that the handbag, and well done to her too.

The rebate is not a privilege, its a balancing mechanism.

At least, the EU Commission said it won't intervene in the British campaign for the referendum.

And that's a good thing. If UK wants to get out, let it be by the voice of their people. I hope they will say "no" to the question of staying in Europe - thus Cameron and his disgusting bargains will finally be out, and he won't be able to blame it on EU this time.

 Sarouan wrote:
At least, the EU Commission said it won't intervene in the British campaign for the referendum.

And that's a good thing. If UK wants to get out, let it be by the voice of their people. I hope they will say "no" to the question of staying in Europe - thus Cameron and his disgusting bargains will finally be out, and he won't be able to blame it on EU this time.

Fair point, you can have a preference so long as we leave it to a plebiscite.

In or Out the UK makes a choice though, here and now, and should not afterwards get all SNP on everyone and look for ways of having more referenda.

The EU isn't a mechanism for paying in money and getting it back. That would make no sense.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU isn't a mechanism for paying in money and getting it back. That would make no sense.

Sorry, is that addressed to me?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU isn't a mechanism for paying in money and getting it back. That would make no sense.

It's a mechanism for paying in and...well...that's it