Britain and the EU

Graham_Devon

Mistermeaner wrote: »

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.

Yes, that is what I meant

For a transitional period I believe if farmers lost such a subsidy, then monies saved on EU payments should be directed at farmers.

Allowing them to go bankrupt just as we face independence would be far too short sighted for my liking.

The beauty of it all is that we would be free to do what's then best in this new independent state. If paying subsidies to farmers forever more is the best solution, fine. If doing something else is the best solution, fine. The point is, we'd be able to do it.

CLAPTON

Mistermeaner wrote: »

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.

Only the government of the day can say how it will choose to use the EU savings cash.
Any subsequent government can make different choices : just like other subsidies and government spending.

What is clear that there is no reason way the government can't make a short term commitment to meet all existing EU spending here and still have 'EU saving cash' left over for other things.
However, there may be better or more urgent uses for the money.

leveller2911

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Business partnerships tend to be equel when both sides have equel financial interests. If I'm in a partnership and have a 70% stake I would expect to have more clout and I don't believe for one minute its different within the EU. Its just not gonna happen that Latvia will have the same influnence as France. In all honesty the smaller states see the EU as a cash cow in the first instance with the added bonus of freedom of movement.

Its blindingly obvious that the small states have been bought and paid for by the EU machine and you just can't see the huge elephant standing in front of you.

Poland is a good example. It now receives huge sums of EU money to bring the country up to date ,spending huge sums on airports built in areas that don't have enough people to make the airports viable, technology parks where there are few people . Its the biggest wealth distribution since the Marshal plan. Do you think Poland will say "no" the Junker or Merkal?.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-29/polish-300-billion-aid-package-hides-eu-expansion-flaws

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.

I believe we can have a better economy outside the EU. I wish people would just grow a pair and get some confidence in what we can do rather than what we can't do.

Maybe thats down to me having the confidence to run a business whereas many people like their nice comfy slippers of employment.


The EU is on a road to Federalism so I'm not happy to go down that road,if you are fine but thats the crux. Much of the rest of what we are discussing is irrelevent.

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 Human Rights Act is way,way out of date and needs reform and when the political elite sitting in their ivory towers protected form the effects of the HRA they have no need to reform it so the political will is not there so a "Bill of Rights" can be better that what we have now. Again, you seem to lack the confidence of what we can do.Do you seriously believe that the UK would desend into some barbarick 15th Century cult. The UK is the oldest democracy in the world and you think we can't be trusted to respect human rights?.

Just remember that when you want to remain in the EU you will be agreeing to more and more low skilled immigant labour coming to the UK keeping wages low of the working class, the same people you supposedly want to help out of poverty and care so much about. When big business have an endless supply of cheap labour from abroad why would they bother to train our people when training is a cost they can avoid?.

Well I care about the poor and the working class but in allowing mass immigration the governments of the day won't need to skill up the young generations they can just import the labour and leave our young to rot on NMW jobs (if they are lucky enough to have a job).

The irony is you say you care about the poor/working class whilst at the same time actively voting to keep a system that keeps people unskilled and poor.

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.

So ,just because no one has left we shouldn't leave?. Someone had to be the first one to leave the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.

Thats a very odd statement to make and the UK may well break up even if we stayed in the EU.

antrobus

leveller2911 wrote: »

...
That may be so but there would be nothing to stop us slapping trade tarrifs on all cars imported from the EU so BMW's, Audi,Mercedes,Seat,Skoda etc etc . It works both ways and we import far more than we export and I just can't see the EU being so childish.

The trade tarrifs we impose can be used to offest the extra cost that our buisnesses would see imposed on them by export tarrifs. I just can't see any gain from either side on this one.

You can start a trade war if you like. But given the size of the UK compared to the size of the EU, it would cost us more to fight one.

leveller2911 wrote: »

...
That may be true but we are discussing trade tarrifs so there is an element of scaremongering in your post.

No, we were specifically discussing agriculture, following on from Generali's post #320, regarding a study on the impact of Brexit on the food sector.

antrobus

leveller2911 wrote: »

...... Do you think Poland will say "no" the Junker or Merkal?.

Well, if press reports are to be believed, Poland has just voted for a right-wing Eurosceptic government, so perhaps they will.:)

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

... No nation has so far left the EU, the EU's view of an independent UK might surprise us.....

Apart from Greenland. Which is a self-governing part of Denmark, and thus might not qualify as a 'nation'.

And Algeria, which would have been part of the EEC before independence in 1962.

BobQ wrote: »

... It will certainly lead to the break up of the UK....

It could well make it more likely. Scotland appears to be more consistently pro-EU than the rest of the UK.

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

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.

.

But this was how the EU was always intended to work the day we joined. That is why some UK roads in Scotland and Wales were improved. It is intended to facilitate trade with disadvantaged regions.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

But this was how the EU was always intended to work the day we joined. That is why some UK roads in Scotland and Wales were improved. It is intended to facilitate trade with disadvantaged regions.

Ffordd Amazon in Swansea was part funded by the European Regional Development Fund not that long ago. Being the bright new shiny road that leads to the Amazon distribution centre.

Conrad

BobQ wrote: »

Sapphire wrote: »

But this was how the EU was always intended to work the day we joined. That is why some UK roads in Scotland and Wales were improved. It is intended to facilitate trade with disadvantaged regions.

Prosperous independent nations such as NZ, Norway and S Korea build their own roads.

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

Ffordd Amazon in Swansea was part funded by the European Regional Development Fund not that long ago. Being the bright new shiny road that leads to the Amazon distribution centre.

Yes, as it provided employment. £13m was granted from the Welsh Assembly too.

However, the EU and the welsh assembly didn't need to spend that money. Amazon were going to build there regardless and would have paid for the roads. (According to a documentary some time back looking at the working conditions).

And what have we got for that funding? A tax dodging, zero hour contract business. You can't even say that the employees will be paying tax in these cases, as many of them will be earning under the tax thresholds.