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.

It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.

The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.

The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.

Any doubts I had about voting to leave have evaporated, now that I've seen Nick Clegg declare his support for the EU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.

The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.

The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.

Agree with this, and I've never had a problem with richer countries in the EU helping the poorer countries develop, I've always accepted that was part of the deal.

 Da Boss wrote:


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.

You're just not 'getting' it - britain is all about doing business, we just don't want outsiders butting their noses into our decision-making.

And it's not just 'misinformation and negative propoganda', if you think it is advantageous for us to leave - that says a lot about the attitude of the other nations involved; they obviously don't want us involved or they would make it advantageous for us to stay - but they haven't. They want our money, but not our involvement.

What you say makes no sense. There's plenty of British involvement in the EU, the same as any other member country.

 SirDonlad wrote:


You're just not 'getting' it - britain is all about doing business, we just don't want outsiders butting their noses into our decision-making.

And it's not just 'misinformation and negative propoganda', if you think it is advantageous for us to leave - that says a lot about the attitude of the other nations involved; they obviously don't want us involved or they would make it advantageous for us to stay - but they haven't. They want our money, but not our involvement.

What UK involvement? Involvement of sabotaging the way EU should work? So far, all UK has done is just whining about how unfair things are going for them while they have a fething special status in EU since the very beginning. The other countries don't have that luck, and that's what is really disgusting.

Of course it's not advantageous of UK to leave - that's why Cameron tried to make its bargains to the end, to convince the others UK was "so important" to stay inside at all costs. Truth is...it isn't. But then, the voices of other states not convinced by Cameron's lies were not heard. Again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.

The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.

The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.

I was addressing the purely financial aspect regarding the perception of the rebate as an 'advantage' or disadvantage'. I did acknowledge that the EU had running costs.

With regards to transferring money from West to East, the extent to which that should take place is certainly up for debate however, as is the myriad number of other projects the EU requires finance for. Those are separate discussions and points to that which I was making though.

 Sarouan wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:


You're just not 'getting' it - britain is all about doing business, we just don't want outsiders butting their noses into our decision-making.

And it's not just 'misinformation and negative propoganda', if you think it is advantageous for us to leave - that says a lot about the attitude of the other nations involved; they obviously don't want us involved or they would make it advantageous for us to stay - but they haven't. They want our money, but not our involvement.

What UK involvement? Involvement of sabotaging the way EU should work? So far, all UK has done is just whining about how unfair things are going for them while they have a fething special status in EU since the very beginning. The other countries don't have that luck, and that's what is really disgusting.

Of course it's not advantageous of UK to leave - that's why Cameron tried to make its bargains to the end, to convince the others UK was "so important" to stay inside at all costs. Truth is...it isn't. But then, the voices of other states not convinced by Cameron's lies were not heard. Again.

I read opinions such as this, and am reminded that skewed perspective certainly goes both ways, in Europe as well as Britain. It makes me wonder if some of the Continental Press is as rabid as our own.

The rebate is something the UK gets which is not enjoyed by the other EU members. From that angle it is a special advantage to the UK, though obviously compared to not paying any EU subscription fees at all, it isn't an advantage.

The point that needs to be considered, is whether the UK gets more 'value' out of EU membership than the raw £ price paid in.

This is where the perception that the UK pays in £X and gets out £X-y is not necessarily correct. There are other benefits to EU membership than simply drawing out cash.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The rebate is something the UK gets which is not enjoyed by the other EU members. From that angle it is a special advantage to the UK, though obviously compared to not paying any EU subscription fees at all, it isn't an advantage.

The point that needs to be considered, is whether the UK gets more 'value' out of EU membership than the raw £ price paid in.

This is where the perception that the UK pays in £X and gets out £X-y is not necessarily correct. There are other benefits to EU membership than simply drawing out cash.

Oh, certainly. I was approaching it from the purely financial sense of it being an 'advantage' or 'disadvantage'.

Those other benefits (or lack thereof) and their quantity/value are something I intend to investigate myself closer to the time.

It's perfectly simple Ketara - nations pay in on the basis of their wealth, not their size. A percentage is paid.

France and Germany pay the full percentage, as do all the other big net-pay-in-ers. When a poor country becomes rich enough, it begins to pay in as well (Ireland is (or was before the crash, not sure now) a net contributor. The idea of the system is to raise areas out of poverty and turn them into successes, thereby increasing the success of the bloc as a whole.

Britain does not pay along the same lines as other countries given it's position. Therefore, compared to say France or Germany, the rebate is, pure and simple, a special advantage.

To an extent, this is part of how the EU works as it is a bunch of nations pressing for advantages at times. France has done similar with CAP, Ireland has done similar with regard to social issues, Germany has thrown it's weight around in the crisis. This is the cut and thrust of European politics, and sometimes it can be aggravating to be on the wrong side of.

What I take issue with is the idea that the UK is somehow especially picked on in this. It quite simply is not true and there is piss all evidence for it. You have done nothing to convince me of it.

As to rabid EU press, not that I've noticed. There is exasperation with Britain by now though, due to the negotiation tactics used by Cameron and the invective slung our way by the disgusting British press.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's perfectly simple Ketara - nations pay in on the basis of their wealth, not their size. A percentage is paid.

France and Germany pay the full percentage, as do all the other big net-pay-in-ers. When a poor country becomes rich enough, it begins to pay in as well (Ireland is (or was before the crash, not sure now) a net contributor. The idea of the system is to raise areas out of poverty and turn them into successes, thereby increasing the success of the bloc as a whole.

Britain does not pay along the same lines as other countries given it's position. Therefore, compared to say France or Germany, the rebate is, pure and simple, a special advantage.

As I said, it really depends on context. Compared purely to Germany. It seems like a special advantage. Compared to Poland? It seems like a slight rectification of a disadvantage. When looked at in light of the total EU budget? It seems the same way. When you begin to incorporate aspects beyond pure monetary exchange? It gets bloody complicated.

All I was doing was pointing that you initially listed it as being an exception (which it is), but in the context of 'advantages', when classifying it as such is really very debatable depending on context (as we have seen). What I am curious to see is if anyone can point out a clear-cut case of EU enacted policies/actions advantageous to the UK, and the UK alone, with no comparable/arguable downside (such as the Parliament thing with France, or the fishing quota thing with Spain). So far, I have yet to hear one.

What I take issue with is the idea that the UK is somehow especially picked on in this. It quite simply is not true and there is piss all evidence for it. You have done nothing to convince me of it.

This is most likely because I was never trying to argue that. Ever. Indeed, I stated the opposite. If you go back to one of my previous posts relating to the EU:-

Ketara wrote:I feel that concerns of 'favouritism' are overplayed most of the time. It does happen, but that sort of thing happens in any form of government, and I don't feel they're any worse than our own in this regard.

I know you're passionate on this Da Boss, but I'm starting to feel a little bit like you're painting a strawman face on me with all these comments about 'my perceptions being skewed by the press' and arguing things I've stated I'm in agreement on. I'm an unconvinced voter. I don't stand one way or the other right now.

As to rabid EU press, not that I've noticed. There is exasperation with Britain by now though, due to the negotiation tactics used by Cameron and the invective slung our way by the disgusting British press.

See, I don't believe for a minute Cameron was ever actually negotiating. I reckon he shut up in the room with the rest of the EU leaders, and said, 'I want to keep us in, what can we make up to let me spin as a victory that nobody has a problem with/can be rectified later?' He was a professional spin doctor before he was PM, and this entire affair relating to him has been about him trying to spin it in favour of staying.

Well Ketara I can only unreservedly apologise for misrepresenting you. I'm very sorry because I missed your previous post, and thought you were arguing a point you were not. I'm sorry!

Re-reading your points, I guess I don't have such a distance from you on these issues (though I certainly feel the Rebate counts as a special UK benefit that others do not get. If the UK's economy ever tanked enough, it would be able to avail of EU funds just the same as somewhere like Poland.)

I'm also not meaning to imply that you passively absorb eurosceptic media, but I do think it's an important point when considering the UK position on Europe. I consume British, Irish and a bit of German media, as well as US media obviously. I also follow I guess the "EU Bubble" end of things which is probably not a good source.

The British media is invariably the worst of the lot when it comes to Europe, misrepresenting issues, reporting in an unclear fashion on the structures and players in Europe and downright under-reporting what goes on in the EU parliament. For reference, I mainly read the BBC and the Guardian, and even the much vaunted BBC I believe is quite poor when it comes to accurate reporting of European issues.

So my digs at the british media are not supposed to be a dig at you, I just feel you are all poorly served by them. I'll try and rein it in though!

Last point, on Cameron's negotiations: Well, the feeling is that he's very slapdash, impatient, and has no real regard for the way things are done in EU diplomacy. There is also a sort of eye rolling irritation at his grandstanding when we've got a migration crisis going on that he contributes bugger all constructive support to.

I mean, I personally dislike him quite a lot (though not as much as I dislike Osborne) so of course my personal bias colours the whole thing pretty strongly.

Anyhow. Please accept my genuine apologies again! I was arguing with multiple people at once there, and I guess you guys all sort of morphed into one for me.

Britain needs to desert the sinking EU ship, as fast as possible.

The interesting thing I've found, with Boris Johnson going for a 'Brexit' is that he's apparently talked about how hard and difficult a decision it was.

I mean, sure, we're talking about Boris. As in..


That Boris.

But still, I kinda wish he'd well, kinda 'show his working' if that makes sense? If we were to take him at his word (from what little I know of him, for all his faults, playing coy isn't the kinda thing he'd do), he would probably have done some research, with some sort of pros and cons ideas.

This sort of admittance from a senior political figure of it being a hard decision is kind of what I want to see.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's addressed to everyone complaining that the UK isn't getting back the £X put into the EU and saying that therefore the EU is pointless.

The sort of organisation that does only that is called a piggy bank.

The EU does a number of things. One is to transfer money from the richest countries to the poorest ones, enabling them to develop faster. Look at Eire and Spain for examples.

Its nice when it actually works. The issue is when there are too many countries which are sucking down cash and not improving at all(like Greece) that makes it a bad idea, and the people running the EU having little to no accountability.

"The people running the EU" are either directly elected or appointed by people who are directly elected. There are "civil servants" who are unelected, but they are not unlike civil servants in any government.

People can hold EU officials to account in the usual way - it's just that people tend not to pay too much attention to what is going on in the EU and then complain about it instead.

 Compel wrote:
The interesting thing I've found, with Boris Johnson going for a 'Brexit' is that he's apparently talked about how hard and difficult a decision it was.

I mean, sure, we're talking about Boris. As in..

That Boris.

But still, I kinda wish he'd well, kinda 'show his working' if that makes sense? If we were to take him at his word (from what little I know of him, for all his faults, playing coy isn't the kinda thing he'd do), he would probably have done some research, with some sort of pros and cons ideas.

This sort of admittance from a senior political figure of it being a hard decision is kind of what I want to see.

I don't think his "difficult decision" had much to do with the pros and cons of leaving The EU. I think it was entirely a political career decision.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well Ketara I can only unreservedly apologise for misrepresenting you. I'm very sorry because I missed your previous post, and thought you were arguing a point you were not. I'm sorry!

Apology wholeheartedly accepted, it's very easy to lose track in big discussions. I've done it myself more than once.

Re-reading your points, I guess I don't have such a distance from you on these issues (though I certainly feel the Rebate counts as a special UK benefit that others do not get. If the UK's economy ever tanked enough, it would be able to avail of EU funds just the same as somewhere like Poland.)

Oh, certainly. The rebate really is one of those double(or quadruple) edged sword things, it cuts one way for us, but can easily cut another.

I know that most talk about EU favouritism is exaggeration, there are a few points of favoritism that have occurred (some of which I've raised), but generally speaking, it's to be expected in any form of governance depending on the importance of an issue to any given party. Our ministers/negotiators were clearly looking the wrong way when the fishing thing was negotiated for example, so they're clearly just as culpable as the EU in that regard. I'd support the issue being re-opened by the British though, now that it's come to light, but it's certainly not an important enough factor right now to be worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm also not meaning to imply that you passively absorb eurosceptic media, but I do think it's an important point when considering the UK position on Europe. I consume British, Irish and a bit of German media, as well as US media obviously. I also follow I guess the "EU Bubble" end of things which is probably not a good source.

The British media is invariably the worst of the lot when it comes to Europe, misrepresenting issues, reporting in an unclear fashion on the structures and players in Europe and downright under-reporting what goes on in the EU parliament. For reference, I mainly read the BBC and the Guardian, and even the much vaunted BBC I believe is quite poor when it comes to accurate reporting of European issues.

So my digs at the british media are not supposed to be a dig at you, I just feel you are all poorly served by them. I'll try and rein it in though!

My sources are probably a bit more international than most, as I work at the London Business School at the moment. As the training ground for a mostly foreign cadre of business orientated postgraduates, there's a lot of magazines from about the globe. Admittedly, I'm limited to the English ones (we have Le Monde daily for example, but I don't speak French!), but it means I get to flick through things like Time, Bloomburg Businessweek, The Economist, etc on top of my staple readings of The Times and The Guardian. I do also browse the BBC website daily, and Reuters on occasion.

Last point, on Cameron's negotiations: Well, the feeling is that he's very slapdash, impatient, and has no real regard for the way things are done in EU diplomacy. There is also a sort of eye rolling irritation at his grandstanding when we've got a migration crisis going on that he contributes bugger all constructive support to.

He came across a lot better when partnered with Clegg to be honest. I think partnering with the Lib Dems gave the Tories a perspective they sorely need, and the Tories a realism the Lib Dems lack, frustrating as it must have been for both parties. With regards to his performance in Europe, this is the first time he's made any real waves, usually he just falls into line with Merkel. Which is what makes me suspect the whole thing is being deliberately spun by both him and everyone else. You have the French President saying one thing about this deal that's the opposite of what Cameron says, whilst the French Foreign Minister says the opposite to agree with him. You have the Poles taking a hardline before suddenly collapsing but still saying they defended their interests. The whole thing has just had such a collaborative and overdramatic whiff about it that I can't bring myself to believe any of it.

I suspect the European media are grimacing at his attitude shown thus far, but the European Governments are biting their tongues because they know his exaggerated rhetoric is false, serves a purpose (keeping Britain in), and is temporary for a few months at worst. Cameron is trying to spin and cater to an audience as best he can, and they're trying to give him the room to do out. The European media aren't privy to that though, and they're not familiar enough with the intricacies of British politics to understand why he's putting on the song and dance he is. So it's only natural they'd be critical.

 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

Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Those countries are economically disadvantaged - helping them to invest in their infastructures is good for the rest of the EU
That is an assumption not a fact. Where did the UK citizens vote on that?

as it creates markets for goods and services. It is the best way to reduce migration.

Current world events disagree.

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

Thats an assumption. facts to support?

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.

Maybe they are just smarter.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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

Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?

There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).

Indeed.

What ARE the benefits of being in the EU now for Britain, or even Germany?

Then even more philosophically, what are the supposed benefits of free trade agreements? A rising number of economists are revisiting that question now.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).

Why would the other Commonwealth nations be interested in such a deal? They already have their own free-trade arrangements (many have those with EU as well.) Besides, they're scattered across the globe. This doesn't sound like a practical suggestion to me.

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed.

What ARE the benefits of being in the EU now for Britain, or even Germany?

Then even more philosophically, what are the supposed benefits of free trade agreements? A rising number of economists are revisiting that question now.

That's the question. Or, to make it more accurate, what unique benefits exist for the UK to remain in the EU?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).

Why would the other Commonwealth nations be interested in such a deal? They already have their own free-trade arrangements (many have those with EU as well.) Besides, they're scattered across the globe. This doesn't sound like a practical suggestion to me.

Why wouldn't they? Britain is a rich nation. I can't see India or similar economies not wanting a piece of that cash. At the end of the day, money talks. If the EU refuses to sell to an exited Britain, there'll be plenty of other nations all too willing to sell to us.

 Frazzled wrote:
Indeed.

What ARE the benefits of being in the EU now for Britain, or even Germany?

Then even more philosophically, what are the supposed benefits of free trade agreements? A rising number of economists are revisiting that question now.

I'm voting to leave, Frazz, and money and jobs don't carry much water with me, because the fundamental issue is democratic freedom.

Should the British people have the final say on decisions that effect Britain or should decisions affecting Britain be made by unelected pen pushers in Brussels (EU headquarters)

Frazz, Brussels is like your Federal government in Washington. It's full of people with good intentions who mean well, but once they get some power, they take more and more, they can't help themselves. Over the last 30 years, the EU has expanded to become this massive organisation, much like your federal government.

Britain, dump the EU and join us in the Redneck Union. We'll use dollah bills, yo!

 Frazzled wrote:


Well what is the advantage to the the EU at this point that a simple GATT treaty wouldn't cover?

GATT only concerns international trade barriers like tariffs and quota's between countries. The EU creates a common free market in which not only goods but capital, services and people can also freely move about. This requires a lot of continuous coordination and cooperation on a wide of policy areas like industrial standards, education, labor and social laws etc.

Not quite. The EU is really unique since that bureaucracy isn't your government, its something that is above your government. It really doesn't have much of a parallel anywhere.

 kronk wrote:
Britain, dump the EU and join us in the Redneck Union. We'll use dollah bills, yo!

Fret not.

When deep cover special agent Trump finishes his mission you'll be using the £ once again

 Crimson wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

There are alternatives already in place that could cover most, if not all, of any negative economic effects of pulling out of the EU. Such as the proposed multi-lateral free trade agreement between members of the Commonwealth (which is dismissed by Europhiles as a British Eurosceptic wet dream).

Why would the other Commonwealth nations be interested in such a deal? They already have their own free-trade arrangements (many have those with EU as well.) Besides, they're scattered across the globe. This doesn't sound like a practical suggestion to me.

In this "global age" of high speed communication and travel, distance is kind of irrelevant.


The interests lie in the fact that Britain is a wealthy nation and the Commonwealth is a long established, world-wide institution. The closer ties with the United Kingdom can lead to more favorable agreements in the long run. It would also allow these nations' economies to further tap into new markets that Britain has access to, but the EU member states might not have a strong foothold in.

 reds8n wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Britain, dump the EU and join us in the Redneck Union. We'll use dollah bills, yo!

Fret not.

When deep cover special agent Trump finishes his mission you'll be using the £ once again

Hush, you. Don't give away the secret plan. Hope you didn't mention the part about the queen appearing back on the bank notes did you? Oops...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not quite. The EU is really unique since that bureaucracy isn't your government, its something that is above your government. It really doesn't have much of a parallel anywhere.

But your government is part of the council of ministers and the European council who in turn are the bosses of the bureaucracy.