Cameron wins EU skirmish

[dandelion]

If the euro survives the current crisis it will be much stronger than it was before, because it will have been tested. I dont really see any reason it will fail, though I agree countries have to learn to live within their means, and politicians are not good at this. Fundamentally this aspect of the euro is again something which appeals to me, similarly re the eu in general. Westminster is not to be trusted to run a country, and some other national governments are worse! the EU provides another layer of checks and balances, as does a euro central bank.

If the euro does become an established success, then inevitably it will snowball and the UK will have no choice but to join. It will have become ridiculous to stay out. It is a mistake which the uk has repeated time and time again to just say, 'oh let those europeans do what they like, it doesnt affect us'. Because it always comes back to bite us. So if some scheme is cooked up it does matter to us, and Cameron must judge it carefully from this perspective.

The welsh parliament was a home grown example which i thought might not attract the automatic distrust of those who do not like the EU. theres a bbc news item BBC News - Assembly Government budget to be 'cut by £1.8bn' which talks about proposed cuts. The welsh object. It says 'The Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition governing Wales says the cuts are too fast and too deep'. The two sides are arguing the toss over whether they should be using inflation adjusted figures or not, which issue seems to apply also to the eu (havnt figured which way they are stated yet), in cash terms (government preferred) it is a very small cut. Clearly the Welsh do not believe they should get a cut. maybe they would settle for a 2.9% rise?

 

[dandelion]

No, that was Tony Blair selling us out in an attempt to become EU President, whilst still failing to address the CAP.

It was conservative policy to enlarge the EU with its inevitable consequence that the cost to the UK would rise. Blairs deal was to reduce UK budget rebate but only with regard to expenditure on new countries. CAP expenditure was excluded and still eligible for the same rebate as previously. I forget exactly how it works and it is damn complicated, but if you look at the europa published budget it shows the calculations using pre accession and post accession adjustments.

Half the EU budget is spent on CAP
Budget of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey I wrote some of that. Nice to be quoted. Note that contrary to common belief, France has always been a net contributor to the EU budget, so although it gets more back from the CAP than any other country it still pays in more than it gets back. Also, because of the way the system works, France has always paid the largest part of the UK rebate.

A 6% rise would cost the UK another Euro1Bn on top of the net contribution of at least 10BN Euros it makes already.

no. It depends what the money is spent on and I have no idea what that is. If it is spent on the CAP, then because of the rebate I think it probably would cost us little because we would get most of it rebated back. If it is spent on new accession development we would not get so much back. If it is spent in the uk, we would indirectly get all of it back.

Please also note that France in particular, & Germany have many more structural offices (including the Parliament), & benefit from this expenditure isn't reflected

There are figures somewere published by eu about which countries benefit from what.

Bizarrely though, could you imagine the UK courts ever acting against European legislation in the same way! It would never happen, & that's hardly Eurosceptic.

This just illustrates a weakness of the uk system of government. In Germany there is a constitution which has to be obeyed and overrides simple acts of parliament or ministers. In the uk we do not.

 

[B_crackoff]

It was conservative policy to enlarge the EU with its inevitable consequence that the cost to the UK would rise.

As a trading block!

Blairs deal was to reduce UK budget rebate but only with regard to expenditure on new countries.

Not really - I remember distinctly Tony Blair saying he was going to reduce the budget, & maintain the rebate, then at the last hour, signed part of it away, which has cost us £9.3Bn

That's all those Harrier Jets, & more!

Tony Blair's decision to cut the EU rebate cost £9.3billion, report shows - Telegraph

CAP expenditure was excluded and still eligible for the same rebate as previously. I forget exactly how it works and it is damn complicated, but if you look at the europa published budget it shows the calculations using pre accession and post accession adjustments.

CAP explicitly subsidizes uncompetitive French Corporate farms to the tune of 8Bn/ann Euros, which produce wine &cheese that nobody eats or drinks. The minor French farms get about 1.5Bn

Hey I wrote some of that. Nice to be quoted.

It's been bloody edited since, & the figures have gone!

Note that contrary to common belief, France has always been a net contributor to the EU budget, so although it gets more back from the CAP than any other country it still pays in more than it gets back. Also, because of the way the system works, France has always paid the largest part of the UK rebate.

See CAP, see also the fact that the Parliament spends 6 months there, as well as an assortment of EU agencies, which also bring in some fiscal benefit

The UK paid more than France net 1995-2003, 2004-2009, & will 2010 onwards. Without any rebate the UK would spend double the % amount of GNI than France, & 1.5 that of Germany.

Get rid of CAP! Of course they'd just want to spend that 50 Billion on something else instead - as all Public Bodies want to!

no. It depends what the money is spent on and I have no idea what that is.

I'm quoting directly from the mail article there.

:wink:

 

[dandelion]

Originally Posted by dandelion
It was conservative policy to enlarge the EU with its inevitable consequence that the cost to the UK would rise.

As a trading block!

Are you telling me Thatcher and Major did not understand that if more poor countries joined the EU it would mean the rich ones paying a bigger share of the costs? The EU redistributes money because it gives it on grants for all sorts of things. Most of the money goers where the need is most, which is not the UK. Britain has long pushed to increase the size of these alternative funds. WE pushed them. we are expected to pay for them.

I remember distinctly Tony Blair saying he was going to reduce the budget, & maintain the rebate, then at the last hour, signed part of it away, which has cost us £9.3Bn

I just explained why. Thatcher didnt talk about the cost of eu expansion either but eventually the bill fell due.

CAP explicitly subsidizes uncompetitive French Corporate farms to the tune of 8Bn/ann Euros, which produce wine &cheese that nobody eats or drinks. The minor French farms get about 1.5Bn

The CAP has been reformed so that it no longer subsidises specific crops. That was agreed at the last budget round 5-7 years ago and is now in force in the Uk. Or, more precisely, countries were given this time to phase in the new scheme. The UK has done so on a rolling program where a bigger proportion of the grant is simply paid 'per acre of land' each year, and a smaller one on traditional crop subsidy schemes. France opted for a sudden death changeover at the last possible moment. So maybe it hasnt happened yet. Irrespective of that, since France pays more into the EU than it gets out, all subsidies to French farmers are paid for by France. Not us.

See CAP, see also the fact that the Parliament spends 6 months there, as well as an assortment of EU agencies, which also bring in some fiscal benefit

Go find the actual published budget figures rather than what some organisations like to quote.

The UK paid more than France net 1995-2003, 2004-2009, & will 2010 onwards. Without any rebate the UK would spend double the % amount of GNI than France, & 1.5 that of Germany.

What is the point of arguing 'without rebate' figures'? The reason we have the rebate is because the EU agreed the UK was paying too much, so it gave us the rebate in perpetuity. Its not the EUs fault if Major/Blair decide they want to give some up and spend it on enlargement, or if Cameron decides to give up some more now.

Get rid of CAP! Of course they'd just want to spend that 50 Billion on something else instead - as all Public Bodies want to!

All europe believes we should have farm subsidies. The UK had its own farm subsidy system before it joined the EU. Its no good blaming this on the EU, because we wanted to have it.

 

[Jason]

Poll of readers in today's Sunday Express:

Is it time Britain pulled out of the EU?
Yes 98%
No 2%

I know it is the Sunday Express and realise the inevitable sample skew. But 98% of any group agreeing to something is pretty definite. I wounder what response this question would get from the whole UK electorate?

Also in today's news (in The Sunday Mail - I had a tabloid lunch!) is the formation of "Coalition 2.0" to look at co-operation between Conservative and Liberal Democrats 2012-2015. The idea that this prepares the ground for a Conservative - Lib Dem merger has already been denied on-line (so its probably true!) Probably the biggest disagreement between Conservatives and Lib Dems is on the EU. A logical way of resolving the disagreement is to put the matter to the vote in a referendum. After all this is democracy. If we are having a vote on AV (which no-one seems a bit interested in) lets have a vote on the EU (which people are getting very worked up about).

 

[dandelion]

asking non lib dems whether the UK ought to leave the EU doesnt seem to me a sensible way to resolve a difficulty in that lib dems believe the reverse. I happened to read the mail today where someone came near to accusing Cameron of being a commie infiltrator. he was speechless about the libs. It makes no difference to the reality of the situation what people believe. Leaving the EU would be a disaster in the long term.

As to a lib dem merger, I still dont see how it might be managed.

 

[Jason]

As to a lib dem merger, I still dont see how it might be managed.

Neither do I. But then I didn't see the Coalition coming.

Come 2015 it is possible that there will be a lot of Lib Dem MPs fearing for their seats as well as a Lib Dem party that have experienced power feeling that they may become an irrelevant rump if either Con or Lab gain an overall majority. With a pact they are looking at either government or partof the main opposition.

Additionally I note that there seem to be fewer and fewer differences of substance between Con and Lib Dem. The Cameron style Conservative party is thrilled to kick the Con right into the long grass (and would happily retire them at the next election). AV is presumably going to be a non-event - probably the result will be no, and who really cares whether it is yes or no? If Con and Lib Dem can agree a policy on Europe - and I think they can - then they are singing from the same hymn sheet on everything that matters. I'm not sure that I see the difference between the two. Am I a Liberal Conservative?

 

[dandelion]

They have more in common than many believed. However, some of that is due to the times we live in which considerably constrain what is the right thing to do. If we were in a boom right now, there might be considerably more disagreement on government cuts!

As to Camerons result with the EU, the subject of this thread, I think really it is just a bit of spin. It wasnt a bad result, but then nor was it a spectacularly good one. I know a lot more about the EU than most, but I still dont know what they want the extra money for, or even if it is extra money counting inflation. An absurd detail to be uncertain of. The actual amount being argued about is insignificant, though being widely played up.

 

[Jason]

I need a drink! I'm agreeing with Dandelion! HELP!

(No I can't find anything about the inflation issue either. I wonder if the heads of state know what they're arguing about?)

 

[Drifterwood]

Thank God that Sunday Express Readers aren't allowed to vote.

 

[B_crackoff]

. Leaving the EU would be a disaster in the long term.

How? Facts & figures. Not conjecture. Lol:wink:

Thank God that Sunday Express Readers aren't allowed to vote.

Bigot! Throw in the Guardian & Independent - for balance.

Every news organisation has its own biased agenda, with their own disciple like readership.

Do they still have the Gambols & Love is?

 

[dandelion]

Originally Posted by dandelion
Leaving the EU would be a disaster in the long term.

How? Facts & figures. Not conjecture. Lol:wink:

Wait and see.

 

[B_crackoff]

Wait and see.

Balls!

Crystal balls that is. If only we had them.

That said, we're all being manipulated to a globalist one world government any way. And the people most in favour of the eradication of nationality, & global subornment are bankers.

So yup, it'll be pushed & pushed, crisis after crisis will be manufactures, & we either won't get a vote on it, or the masses will be frightened into it.

History suggest that any lasting civillisation must have a large degree of commonality, the main part of which is language & custom - which is what they're trying to destroy now, no less than Edward Longshanks did to the Welsh, & attempted on the Scots.

The thing is - all empires fail. Viva self sustaining collectives trading in mutual harmony with others. I call them nations!

 

[Drifterwood]

Bigot!

Just a joke Cracker in respect of who is not allowed to vote in the UK.

England is not a nation. I see this as a major obstacle to your POV.

 

[eurotop40]

...
The thing is - all empires fail. ...

Such as the British Empire did.

 

[Jason]

Leaving the EU would be a disaster in the long term.

The point is that none of us truly know. Pick your mainstream, respected economist with care and you can get any prediction you want. I suspect that the effect on the UK economy of leaving the EU would depend greatly on how the process was managed and what sort of trade agreement was made between the UK and the EU. Therefore the effect might be a disaster or might be a great success.

I don't think the decision should be taken primarily on economic grounds. I think it should be taken on political grounds. As it stands the EU has an enormous democratic deficit - for example it is so out of touch with the people of the EU nations that it can seek a 6% increase in budget including massive increases in Eurocrats' entertainments slush fund. As it stands the EU finances are corrupt - this is why the Commission's accounts have not been signed off for years. As it stands the EU cannot offer the periphery nations a route map that will take them out of debt and therefore condemns their people to a generation of poverty and underachievement. As it stands the EU has the euro on a life support system with no long-term plan to stabilise it.

Logically the answer to these problems is either more EU (solve the above problems) or less EU. I believe the institutions of the EU are unable to solve the problems. My solution is therefore less EU. Yes I would like to see the UK leave - but I would also like to see many or all others leave. I know there are enormous problems with nation states but they are less than the problems of the EU. No nation state should permit 40% youth unemployment (Spain) or 35% youth unemployment (Greece), and outside of the EU/euro it wouldn't be like this.

Maybe we would all be poorer without the EU - though this is not a given, whatever the Europhiles assert (for example over the last half century the USA has performed far better than the EEC/EU nations, perhaps indicating that the EEC/EU has got key decisions wrong). But without the EU I think we would be happier. Imagine full employment in the periphery nations. Imagine Germans and French not having to work longer so Greeks can retire earlier. Imagine Ireland without its economic bust.

 

[dandelion]

The point is that none of us truly know.

Very true. Most of us just have strong views. I think ted Heath's view was coloured by his own experience of europeans shooting each other. Never had that experience myself, but I have always thought this lesson should never be forgotten. Which is not to say I think people should be forced to join. I agree with you that would be a very bad idea.

As it stands the EU has an enormous democratic deficit

we have argued this before. The EU was set up to obey the representatives of the member states acting in council and more or less unanimously, and thats what it still does. Thus, obviously, a democratic deficit. If it had real democratic authority we would now be getting that 7% budget rise instead of it being quashed by the states. Would you rather the parliament had real power?

As it stands the EU finances are corrupt - this is why the Commission's accounts have not been signed off for years.

You must know that although this is true, it is only small areas of the accounts they are unhappy with.

As it stands the EU cannot offer the periphery nations a route map that will take them out of debt and therefore condemns their people to a generation of poverty and underachievement

Blimey, are you suggesting we should turn it into a superstate with the necessary powers to do this?

the EU has the euro on a life support system with no long-term plan to stabilise it.

No. actually it has certain member countries on life support. It isnt propping up the currency, it is handing huge wadges of cash to Greece.

Maybe we would all be poorer without the EU

We would be weaker, which is what matters.

(for example over the last half century the USA has performed far better than the EEC/EU nations

Surely the US performed far better than europe for the preceding half century too. I'd say that relatively the position of europe has improved steadily in the last 50 years. The period 50-100 years ago was utterly disastrous. All those independant nations....blowing each other to pieces. Oh the sweet freedom to die shooting at foreigners.

without the EU I think we would be happier. Imagine full employment in the periphery nations. Imagine Germans and French not having to work longer so Greeks can retire earlier. Imagine Ireland without its economic bust.

My imagination isnt that good. No... something is coming through the mist....ah, its a US tower block, headquarters of a bank and someone has just decided not to adopt the ideas of fred from mortgages about derivatives....

 

[Jason]

Blimey, are you suggesting we should turn it into a superstate with the necessary powers to do this?

This would be coherent. Elsewhere I've put forward the view (quite a few times!) that monetary union without fiscal union is economic illiteracy and must all end in tears - and yes a superstate (which gives fiscal union) is one possible answer.

I think the Eurocrats and the heads of state should be honest. Either we have a lot more EU (fast) or a lot less EU - what we've got right now is unstable. We have the ECB recently buying euro-denominated bonds issued by periphery nations (by definition propping up the euro) but an EU structure which cannot resolve the fundamental problems in the periphery. The media has got bored with events in Greece but it hasn't all suddenly come right. With the best possible projected figures they are still broke for as many years ahead as anyone cares to look. It is incredibly damaging to Greek society.

 

[B_crackoff]

Such as the British Empire did.

Blimey Switzerland. You're meant to be neutral!:wink: Shouldn't you be thinking of the Napoleonic, or Holy Roman Empire?

Just a joke Cracker in respect of who is not allowed to vote in the UK.

England is not a nation. I see this as a major obstacle to your POV.

6 Nations starting soon, I'll have to demur. It's certainly a country! Nations aren't defined necessarily by temporary political shifts, but socially, culturally, & by self identification (Kosovo, Bosnia, & in particular - The Isle of Man)

Much like the sexuality function on this site.

That said, many countries refer to the whole of the UK, or GB as England.

I'd like Scots, Irish & Welsh MPs banned from voting on purely English matters, as is the reciprocal arrangement, to ensure equitable UK nods to separate identity, but that seems to be another Tory promise exposed as a lie.:frown1:

 

[Jason]

Just out in the FT story about a big jump in sovereign debt costs for Dublin and Lisbon (FT requires registration so I'm not linking). The article sets out that the Franco-German proposal for a permanant mechanism to provide euro bailouts has spooked the markets. The FT manages to quote Moody's saying that sovereign debt default by Greece, Portugal, Ireland is NOT expected (but they would say that, wouldn't they!) then wheels out an expert for the quote “You can’t get away from the fact that there will be some kind of restructuring in the eurozone periphery” .

The Franco-German plan is supposed to be that a bailout mechanism means that Irish and Portuguese debt is as safe as German debt. But the markets seem to feel that having the mechanism will make it more likely that countries will get into difficulties, and additionally the markets appear to feel that the mechanism may not work.

(Just in passing - England is a nation. England is not a sovereign state. The sovereign state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - ie the four home nations together.)