We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Britain and the EU
Comments
-
The farm stuff is very interesting - and it's one of those very rare arguments that force me to consider my view.
However, while I accept farmers will lose EU money - it should also be noted that we will save money as a country if we leave the EU.
We also know that the UK would not simply let 90% of farmers go under should we leave the EU. They will be protected.
So, the question really in my mind is, usre, I can see they will lose EU money, but how much will it cose us in the UK to replace that loss? And can that money be found from the millions sent to the EU at the moment?
I think the overarching point is that farmers will lose EU money, sure, but what will replace it, as the UK sure as hell won't just leave them high and dry.0 -
My own view is that Germany along with France have far more influence than their voting share would usually give them and probably down to the fact that they put so much money into the project. The old saying goes "He who pays the piper calls the tune". They also have a huge economy compared to all the other states.
In life people who pay the most into any businesses expect to have the most influence compared to someone who pays little or nothing in.
I would ask you the same question I posed earlier:
If the EU is truely democratic then why did Germany threaten the smaller Eastern states in saying their EU subsidies could be at risk if they didn't agree with the EU migrant plan?. The fact that they did this makes any sensible/sane person wonder if they threaten other states in other areas of EU business.
I'm not an economist and there are far better qualified people than me on here but when the Euro was formed was it linked to the value of the German Mark and if so why?.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »
So, the question really in my mind is, usre, I can see they will lose EU money, but how much will it cose us in the UK to replace that loss? And can that money be found from the millions sent to the EU at the moment?
I think the overarching point is that farmers will lose EU money, sure, but what will replace it, as the UK sure as hell won't just leave them high and dry.
Don't forget that if we leave there will be less money in the EU to hand out in subsidies to other EU farmers.
Loss of income will not be limited to the UK farmers. The French and Polish farmers will also be hit.0 -
Edit: in response to Graham on UK replacing eu subsidies to farmers: You would hope not but on what basis do you say that it won't happen.
Surely a blanket statement would be required from the out campaign guaranteeing that all current UK recipients of eu subsidies will continue to enjoy the same level of subsidy post eu.....
I'm sure it can't just be farmers who get subsidies; does anyone else know who does? Didn't hull benefit, and liverpool, and Glasgow?Left is never right but I always am.0 -
Mistermeaner wrote: »Edit: in response to Graham on UK replacing eu subsidies to farmers: You would hope not but on what basis do you say that it won't happen.
I didn't say or imply it won't happen I don't think.
And why would you hope not to support farmers who lose EU cash if we pull out of the EU?
If one of the benefits of us all being in the EU is enjoyed by farmers, they shouldn't (in my mind) find themselves bankrupt should the nation decide it wants out.
The transition period is going to be hard. We don't need farmers going bankrupt - it's far too short sighted.
As for blanket statements - the out campaign cannot make such a blanket statement - they are a campaign group - not the government. The government isn't going to make such a statement - they want to use the fear factor.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »In life people who pay the most into any businesses expect to have the most influence compared to someone who pays little or nothing in.
If only it worked that way with tax + votingLeft is never right but I always am.0 -
Mistermeaner wrote: »If only it worked that way with tax + voting
Democracy sucks eh
However, the very rich don't need to vote to get their voices heard. They can pay to go to banquets and employ MPs for political gain.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I didn't say or imply it wouldn't happen I don't think.
And why would you hope not to support farmers who lose EU cash if we pull out of the EU?
If one of the benefits of us all being in the EU is enjoyed by farmers, they shouldn't (in my mind) find themselves bankrupt should the nation decide it wants out.
The transition period is going to be hard. We don't need farmers going bankrupt - it's far too short sighted.
People are posting too fast, my reply lost context!
I understood you to be saying that farmers could be compensated for loss of eu subsidy by a UK subsidy funded by savings from what we're not then paying into the eu..... is that correct?
If that did happen (and there is nothing currently saying it will) then the farmers may well be indifferent to eu membership.... but as a standalone economy would we want to do that? Might there be other better uses for the money (eg building council houses on farmland)
I really don't know and I don't think anyone does - leaving the eu gives us better control of borders: I see the advantage there, but the economic effects are far from clear - we may have alot more choice in distribution of eu 'savings' but I would like to know what we plan to do with that saved cash.Left is never right but I always am.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »
Its a fair point but I don't think we have enough influence within the EU.Our voting influence accounts for less than 9% of the vote and if in the future more countries join it will be even less. Some people say we need to build alliances but the problem I see with that is the UK is one of the major financial contributors whereas most other states receive far more back than they pay in so I can't see us ever getting an agremment on the CAP for instance when countries like Poland receive huge amounts of CAP susbsidies. As I see it turkeys don't vote for Christmas and EU states won't form an alliance if it hits their [STRIKE]bribe[/STRIKE] subsidies.
I just don't see many other EU states with the same needs as we do, most of them are poor and or very small economies and couldn't survive without the EU but we can. Most of the EU is run to the advantage of Germany and France and they openly flex their economic muscles when dealing with the small states. I am not against states getting together and co-operate ,possibly along the lines of the EFTA style but certainly not the EU or the Federalist road its going down.
Lets not forget Germany/EU openly threatened the Eastern states with cutting their subsidies if they don't sign up to the EU migrant/refugee plan so my question to you would be:
My view is that in any partnership based organisation you gain influence based on how you behave. If you seek to cooperate and build on what you can agree upon progress is made. If you win arguments and build alliances you gain influence. If you jump up down and whinge about things you are ignored and can become isolated.
I agree that UK could manage without the EU, but the question is whether we would be better for it. The EU has evolved and will continue to do so.Do you want to be part of a group of nations that will have more and more integration and one whereby the bigger members threaten the smaller ones if they don't comply and one were we have less influence as it grows?..
No but neither do I want to be an isolated nation that continues to breach the human rights of its citizens and threatens its citizens with a two tier economy where large numbers of people scrape a living on a low wage in a wealthy country.
The future of the EU is determined by all of the nations. Blindly assuming that we are so important that we will leave and then co-exist in an harmonious relationship with the EU, is not a good strategy. No nation has so far left the EU, the EU's view of an independent UK might surprise us. It will certainly lead to the break up of the UK.
The EU is a series of Treaties that we signed. Nobody forced us to join. Nobody forced us to sign the treaties.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »
Its a fair point but I don't think we have enough influence within the EU.Our voting influence accounts for less than 9% of the vote and if in the future more countries join it will be even less. Some people say we need to build alliances but the problem I see with that is the UK is one of the major financial contributors whereas most other states receive far more back than they pay in so I can't see us ever getting an agremment on the CAP for instance when countries like Poland receive huge amounts of CAP susbsidies. As I see it turkeys don't vote for Christmas and EU states won't form an alliance if it hits their [STRIKE]bribe[/STRIKE] subsidies.
I just don't see many other EU states with the same needs as we do, most of them are poor and or very small economies and couldn't survive without the EU but we can. Most of the EU is run to the advantage of Germany and France and they openly flex their economic muscles when dealing with the small states. I am not against states getting together and co-operate ,possibly along the lines of the EFTA style but certainly not the EU or the Federalist road its going down.
Lets not forget Germany/EU openly threatened the Eastern states with cutting their subsidies if they don't sign up to the EU migrant/refugee plan so my question to you would be:
Do you want to be part of a group of nations that will have more and more integration and one whereby the bigger members threaten the smaller ones if they don't comply and one were we have less influence as it grows?..
Agree with this. It was brought home to me just how much the EU finances the less affluent eastern European countries just recently, when I saw the huge, efficient new road system that had been built in Poland, which apparently extends right through to Germany and massively cuts down the amount of time taken by lorry drivers to reach one point from another. The same has apparently happened in Spain. I'm sure the UK contributed massive sums to such projects.
Somehow, however, I don't think the eastern European countries will be bribed into losing their sovereignty to Germany. Political decisions such as acceptance by Germany of migrants should certainly not be mixed with economic ones that benefit the whole continent (such as the building of lines of communication, like roads). No country in the EU should try to force another to accept illegal migrants if it does not want them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards