Europe-Am I missing something?

ILW

Yesterday on the radio, a supporter of the EU was defending Britains contribution to the budget by saying that we get back 85% of what we put in. I must be really thick as I fail to see that as a great deal for the UK. What am I missing?

halight

A great deal for the UK would be getting 120% back of what we put in. We pay for the running of our own country and then we pay for the running of the EU we all must be mad! All Eu countrys are paying running costs twice

Well in my mind anyway

tomterm8

ILW wrote: »

What am I missing?

The fact we probably don't get back 85% of what we pay to europe? After all, the money goes from our taxes through about eight layers of money grubbers taking their skim, so although 85% of the money is spent in Britain, it certainly isn't likely that its spent the way the British public would want.

Or the fact that the EU produces more law every year than the UK used to produce in a hundred years, and its got to the point that a legal student would need to spend their entire life reading directives if they actually wanted to know what the law was?

And that alot of the law is completly daft, like the european working height directive, or the consumer credit directive that reduced legal protections to consumers while increasing running costs to banks?

Generali

ILW wrote: »

Yesterday on the radio, a supporter of the EU was defending Britains contribution to the budget by saying that we get back 85% of what we put in. I must be really thick as I fail to see that as a great deal for the UK. What am I missing?

The benefits of free trade outweigh the undoubted costs of being a member of the EU.

olly300

Generali wrote: »

The benefits of free trade outweigh the undoubted costs of being a member of the EU.

And to add Norway and Switzerland who aren't in the EU put lots of money in as well as they want to be able to trade easily.

ILW

I don't understand why we have to put money in to allow free trade. Many countries trade with each other without having to pay a fee for the privelege. I got the impression that much of the budget is spent on items such as the CAP which is totally against free trade and competition.

olly300

tomterm8 wrote: »

Or the fact that the EU produces more law every year than the UK used to produce in a hundred years, and its got to the point that a legal student would need to spend their entire life reading directives if they actually wanted to know what the law was?

Law students and lawyers don't seem to have any problems keeping up with the legislation produced by the European Commission and implemented by the European Court of Justice.

It's what keeps them in business.

One of the issues in the UK legal jurisdictions is that we have open interpretations of laws. So while our various legal courts and parliaments interpret the directives one way in other countries i.e. France they interpret it in the way to benefit them.

olly300

ILW wrote: »

I don't understand why we have to put money in to allow free trade. Many countries trade with each other without having to pay a fee for the privelege. I got the impression that much of the budget is spent on items such as the CAP which is totally against free trade and competition.

Other developed countries subside their farmers and other industries i.e. the US which means that countries mostly developing ones who don't suffer.

Being in the EU means that we have to be "fair" with our closest trading partners on how we subside our farmers and industries.

Plus knowing what the US do to their beef I'm quite happy to be in the EU for certain things.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

I don't understand why we have to put money in to allow free trade. Many countries trade with each other without having to pay a fee for the privelege. I got the impression that much of the budget is spent on items such as the CAP which is totally against free trade and competition.

My point is that the benefits that accrue to the UK from being a part of the Single Market hugely outweigh the costs of the net payment to the EU.

CAP doesn't prevent free trade within the single market AIUI.

ILW

Generali wrote: »

My point is that the benefits that accrue to the UK from being a part of the Single Market hugely outweigh the costs of the net payment to the EU.

CAP doesn't prevent free trade within the single market AIUI.

I agree with a free trade agreement, but fail to see why this needs to involve more than a small fee to cover admin costs.

AS far as CAP goes it seems to be a method of artificially inflating prices to allow some countries to run their agriculture in a very inefficient way.

Generali

ILW wrote: »

I agree with a free trade agreement, but fail to see why this needs to involve more than a small fee to cover admin costs.

Not unreasonable. However the EU generally require membership with all the other costs of various follies to allow access to the Single Market. There are exceptions I believe.

ILW wrote: »

AS far as CAP goes it seems to be a method of artificially inflating prices to allow some countries to run their agriculture in a very inefficient way.

My limited knowledge of the CAP is that it is appalling and indefensible.