New Era Dawns for EU

[dandelion]

I'm not going to anwser because this is just a silly attempt at avoiding to back up your own point. I've already anwsered one of your sweeping statements which you've turned back to me and I'm not doing it again.

If you mean, I got you to make specific objections to the EU and then I answered them, yes, I did.

"Mine is an informed opinion" what sources and evidence did you look at to make it an informed opinion then?

Easy. I listened to the news, read the treaties and watched what the EU and our own government have done. The EU has some very interesting websites. Try wikipedia too.

And by the way: if you employed this stupid "question back to you" tactic at a professional debate or in an essay, you would be shot down for it within about 1 second.

Lucky this is a chat forum, then.

If you're going to make sweeping statements and generalisations then learn to back them up with equally strong evidence.

Why? you were asking me to provide proof that the EU has had no effect on british culture whatsoever? Like proving I have no money by showing it to you? I say nothing has changed, you say lots has. I tell you what I think has changed, which is _________ . Now you tell me what you think has changed.

you can't make sweeping statements and generalisations in a debate then not back them up at all with any evidence. It is not the sign of a good debator.

Tell it to a seminar full of MPs. Works for them.

Oh for your convinience, I've found the exact quote where you've said it as well:

Don't think that was the right quote, but I would stand by the comment you quote which was 'Well bluntly, if Europe was a superstate like the US we would all be better off. I don' see how anyone could dispute that. '

We would have the benefits of world influence which the US enjoys, but hopefully with the added benefits of a more caring society we enjoy now. I am also certain that many many people who had doubts about such a thing would afterwards wonder what all the fuss had been about. I doubt we would really notice any difference, except perhaps having a currency which we could just use abroad instead of having to pay a bank to change it into something else. And that westminster parliament might be a bit less cocksure.

Now, what was that thing about not shooting the messenger if you don't like the message?

 

[Jason]

I like Britain

Isn't this exactly the point! Lots of us like Britain. For that matter lots of people in every country in Europe like their country.

There are of course Europhiles. They are most common in Benelux, France, Germany. Having said that, France voted against the proposed constitution, so the Europhiles aren't without opposition even in these heartland countries. Outside of these countries you will struggle to find anyone who says "I like the EU". As I write this I have a feeling that there might be one of two with such a view on this board, but the point stands that this is an unusual view.

I like Britain. I like the countries of Europe. But the EU I don't like. Instead I react to the EU with both disgust and fear.

By the way, is the stitch up for EU president taking place tomorrow?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Isn't this exactly the point! Lots of us like Britain. For that matter lots of people in every country in Europe like their country.

There are of course Europhiles. They are most common in Benelux, France, Germany. Having said that, France voted against the proposed constitution, so the Europhiles aren't without opposition even in these heartland countries. Outside of these countries you will struggle to find anyone who says "I like the EU". As I write this I have a feeling that there might be one of two with such a view on this board, but the point stands that this is an unusual view.

I like Britain. I like the countries of Europe. But the EU I don't like. Instead I react to the EU with both disgust and fear.

By the way, is the stitch up for EU president taking place tomorrow?

Rubbish, the Portuguese, the Irish, the Greeks, the Italians, and Maltese, and a substantial minority of British all consistently poll as highly favourable to the EU and for good reason, it has been a massive force for social and economic progress and the elimination of conflict in Europe for decades now.

 

[cock23]

Easy. I listened to the news, read the treaties and watched what the EU and our own government have done. The EU has some very interesting websites. Try wikipedia too.

So these sources made you so well informed that you still can't explain why you think that way??

Tell it to a seminar full of MPs. Works for them.

Doesn't make it a brilliantly good debating technique. In fact, it's not a good one at all. It just makes the person who's employing it look like they're squirming out of the question that's being asked.

Don't think that was the right quote, but I would stand by the comment you quote which was 'Well bluntly, if Europe was a superstate like the US we would all be better off. I don' see how anyone could dispute that. '

Oh I do. Go back a page or two and you will see the post where you said that exact quote. Or do you want me to quote that entire post as well?

We would have the benefits of world influence which the US enjoys, but hopefully with the added benefits of a more caring society we enjoy now. I am also certain that many many people who had doubts about such a thing would afterwards wonder what all the fuss had been about. I doubt we would really notice any difference, except perhaps having a currency which we could just use abroad instead of having to pay a bank to change it into something else. And that westminster parliament might be a bit less cocksure.

Lots of uncertain words here, like "hopefully" and "doubt and "perhaps". For someone who's incredibly sure that an EU superstate is such a brilliant thing you certainly have difficulty explaining your reasons why this would be so and why it would make life here SO much better.

 

[798686]

I like Britain. I like the countries of Europe. But the EU I don't like. Instead I react to the EU with both disgust and fear.

By the way, is the stitch up for EU president taking place tomorrow?

Same here.
I think it's today and tomorrow? Vilma Fokker-Brautwirster is a new forerunner. :wink:

Rubbish, the Portuguese, the Irish, the Greeks, the Italians, and Maltese, and a substantial minority of British all consistently poll as highly favourable to the EU and for good reason, it has been a massive force for social and economic progress and the elimination of conflict in Europe for decades now.

They've also received massive handouts to rebuild their infrastructure, coincidentally....

 

[Jason]

Vilma Fokker-Brautwirster is a new forerunner. :wink:

You don't have to make up the names. Von Rumpy-Tumpy is front runner. Now what will "The Sun" make of that name?

 

[dandelion]

Lots of uncertain words here, like "hopefully" and "doubt and "perhaps". For someone who's incredibly sure that an EU superstate is such a brilliant thing you certainly have difficulty explaining your reasons why this would be so and why it would make life here SO much better.

I think you missed a point I mentioned,

Now, what was that thing about not shooting the messenger if you don't like the message?

 

[dandelion]

_

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

They've also received massive handouts to rebuild their infrastructure, coincidentally....

Yeah and there's nothing wrong with that really is there ? :tongue: I mean that's the EU working, doing what it's supposed to do, no ?

And the pro-EU states also include many of the newest accession states in the east. Most of them wont ever be recipients of funding anything like Ireland, and Greece and Portugal.

 

[cock23]

You don't have to make up the names. Von Rumpy-Tumpy is front runner. Now what will "The Sun" make of that name?

Jason! Where have I been wrong? I'm still waiting for you to tell me. :wink:

 

[798686]

Yeah and there's nothing wrong with that really is there ? :tongue: I mean that's the EU working, doing what it's supposed to do, no ?

And the pro-EU states also include many of the newest accession states in the east. Most of them wont ever be recipients of funding anything like Ireland, and Greece and Portugal.

True, but understandably the UK doesn't feel the same, since it's been a massive net contributer since joining.

The Eastern European states still receive a fair amount - Poland was due to get £60 billion over the current financial period (07-13, I think) which almost exactly mirrors the UK's £60 billion expected contribution over the same period. They'll now be receiving a lot of the development money that used to come Ireland's way.

I love the Irish actually - but have the feeling they've stitched themselves up unintentionally. Having accepted EU 'generosity' to rebuild themselves, they're now locked into the EU and dependent on them (hence the Yes vote), and now the money's running out - but they're left with all the onerous EU regulations and restrictions and have the prospect of a future competely under Brussels' authority. Sold out. :redface:

Having said that - I still love going there, and the people are ace. :biggrin1: [Join the UK in an EU breakaway state! hehehe).

 

[dandelion]

True, but understandably the UK doesn't feel the same, since it's been a massive net contributer since joining.

The UK is still in the happy position that it enjoys the rebate negotiated by Mrs Thatcher, which has applied since her time. This means we automatically get repaid any net contributions over the threshold level, though off hand I forget the precise details. Basically it means if for some reason we contribute an extra £200 million (say unexpected rise in tax returns), then we get most of it back automatically once the sums are done, which is a few years after the event. Alternatively, if the EU announces some fancy scheme which gives the UK £200 million in grants (say to encourage fishing) then the Uk rebate goes down by about the same amount. So it is in the interest of the UK government to refuse all EU grants to this country, because that money would go to people here. Whereas the rebate goes directly to the government to do with as it likes.

This rather distorts the UK government view of the Eu, becasue unlike other countries, it is in its interest to positively prevent the EU spending money here. Which is a self fulfilling prophecy as regard us not getting benefits from the EU...because we always turn them down.

The Eastern European states still receive a fair amount - Poland was due to get £60 billion over the current financial period (07-13, I think) which almost exactly mirrors the UK's £60 billion expected contribution over the same period. They'll now be receiving a lot of the development money that used to come Ireland's way.

In one sense the UK doesn't care a damn how much money everyone else agrees to give to Poland, etc., because it does not come out of our pocket.

However.... Tony Blair agreed a cut in the British rebate specifically to finance payments to the new accession countries. Again off hand, I think it was about 20%. The terms of the deal is that the money may only be used for these development funds. Britian has a policy of refusing to allow agricultural policy spending to rise, and this budget has been essentially capped, so that the same amount of money as originally is now spread around more countries and each of the original ones gets a bit less. Except the Uk, of course, because our budget rebate means we get the lost money back, paid directly to the government. Nice, eh?

The reason Blair agreed to the rebate cut is because the British government was one of the countries pressing for this enlargement, so they agreed to pay for it too. (just their proportionate share, of course)

I love the Irish actually - but have the feeling they've stitched themselves up unintentionally. Having accepted EU 'generosity' to rebuild themselves, they're now locked into the EU and dependent on them (hence the Yes vote), and now the money's running out - but they're left with all the onerous EU regulations and restrictions and have the prospect of a future competely under Brussels' authority. Sold out. :redface:

Except that the reason the Irish don't get the money is because they are now a lot richer. If they give it all away and go back to being poor, then they will qualify for grants again. Yes, I know the new countries are probably even poorer than the Irish were in the first place, but the principle still applies. EU grants are normally even handed so that the criteria apply equally to everyone. To qualify for aid to poor regions all you need to do is make yourself poor.

 

[798686]

It's not really a happy position, dude. Yes, we have a rebate - but even with that we are the second biggest net contributor (after Germany).

Each year we put £4 or 5 billion more into Europe than we get out (and that's with the rebate included!). With Tony Blair's cut, the net contribution is set to rise to about £9 or 10 billion each year by 2013. Without the rebate we would be, by far, the biggest net contributor - paying in twice as much overall as almost all of the other states.

Yes, we do care how much Poland gets, because it DOES come out of our pockets. As I've said, we've been paying in £4 or 5 billion net to the EU each year.

It's also true that our Government has discouraged grants here (as you mentioned), because they would be clawed back out of our rebate. This is why we couldn't have our fishing industry overhauled like the Spanish did.

 

[dandelion]

It's not really a happy position, dude. Yes, we have a rebate - but even with that we are the second biggest net contributor (after Germany).

I had a quick look for some figures, but I havn't studied them for years and it is not an easy thing to do in a hurry, even when you can find them they are difficult to analyse, The rebate is 2/3 of the overpayment, not as I was remembering 100%. The whole formula for how it is worked out is surprisingly complicated.

Each year we put £4 or 5 billion more into Europe than we get out (and that's with the rebate included!). With Tony Blair's cut, the net contribution is set to rise to about £9 or 10 billion each year by 2013. Without the rebate we would be, by far, the biggest net contributor - paying in twice as much overall as almost all of the other states.

Which is of course one reason it was granted. The other was that at the time the UK was poor as well as paying a lot. Now we aren't poor any more. (not taking into account the current financial crisis, of course, which has still to be calculated) So people reckon we should be paying something.

Yes, we do care how much Poland gets, because it DOES come out of our pockets. As I've said, we've been paying in £4 or 5 billion net to the EU each year.

That's true, but as seems to be the theme of my replies in this thread, we are paying to do something we wanted to do, enlarge the EU and give grants to the new members. It is not something we were forced to do by the EU. It was UK government policy to do this. If you think we should not have done this, blame this labour administration and the previous conservative one, who are responsible.

It's also true that our Government has discouraged grants here (as you mentioned), because they would be clawed back out of our rebate. This is why we couldn't have our fishing industry overhauled like the Spanish did.

Also EU aid to help pay for BSE and foot and mouth, which I recall we also turned down.

Incidentally, when I last checked the complicated rebate process resulted in France having to cough up 1/3 of our rebate and italy 1/4.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

True, but understandably the UK doesn't feel the same, since it's been a massive net contributer since joining.

In fact Germany, easily the most pro-EU of the big EU economies is also by far the largest net contributor to the EU. By comparison the UK contribution is meagre, especially considering UK GDP.

The Eastern European states still receive a fair amount - Poland was due to get £60 billion over the current financial period (07-13, I think) which almost exactly mirrors the UK's £60 billion expected contribution over the same period. They'll now be receiving a lot of the development money that used to come Ireland's way.

Oh come on 60billion over a five or six year period is absolute peanuts compared to the sums which used to be handed out. And its miniscule compared to the budget for the CAP, which even though it was in dire need of reform (reform it's going through now) did in fact save huge sections of the agricultural sector throughout the EU.

Oh and until the recent economic collapse Ireland had been an enthusiastic net contributor to the EU for a number of years, we like to pay off our debts when we can afford to.

I love the Irish actually - but have the feeling they've stitched themselves up unintentionally. Having accepted EU 'generosity' to rebuild themselves, they're now locked into the EU and dependent on them (hence the Yes vote), and now the money's running out - but they're left with all the onerous EU regulations and restrictions and have the prospect of a future competely under Brussels' authority. Sold out. :redface:

Ok well thanks for presuming that the voters of Ireland are all simpletons :biggrin1::tongue:

As I pointed out, during the height of the Irish economic rebirth it was already an enthusiastic contributor to the EU, and if you didn't follow the details of the referendum here on the Treaty of Lisbon then you should know that in order to achieve a yes vote "Brussels" was forced to continue to allow Ireland to keep its commissioner, and to concede a range of exemptions from certain aspects of the Lisbon Treaty which had formed the basis of much of the opposition to the Lisbon Treaty in the first referendum.

It's worth making the point that the first No vote was not a no vote to the EU per se, nor was it a no to the overall direction in which the EU is heading. Ireland has been solidly pro-EU and generally in favour of closer political and economic Union. Unlike the UK what anti-EU feeling there is is either tiny or of a highly specific nature, relating to specific aspects of EU policy. There is no significant secessionist movement in Ireland and no particular resentment of the power being given to the EU by the Irish government.

In fact one never hears the kind of grizzling and moaning one hears in the UK about EU regulations, and thankfully nor does one hear or read the blatant lies regarding EU regulations (the straight bananas scare e.t.c. never having been taken seriously here) which are common currency in the UK also. In fact generally EU law and regulations are considered to have had a positive effect on Ireland, in the areas of Human Rights especially, and Economic and Social reforms also.

Having said that - I still love going there, and the people are ace. :biggrin1: [Join the UK in an EU breakaway state! hehehe).

:biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: I'm not going to even start on how impossible that is, Even if Ireland hated the EU like poison and was about to declare war on the Brussels Bureaucrats right now, I can assure you that Ireland would never ever join any state of any kind in which its exclusive partner was the UK :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

Now I'm not saying that's particularly rational or necessarily very pretty but it's the truth nonetheless :tongue: There are 800 years of good reasons for that though :tongue::biggrin1:

 

[798686]

Cheers for the info Hilaire. I understand your apprehension at joining a union with the UK We still like ya tho - well, Liverpudlians like me do, anyway (since almost half my family is from there originally, lol).

You're right in saying that Germany is the biggest contributer. The British net contribution (after rebate) isn't meagre in comparison, though. Until recently we were paying £4-5 billion a year net, compared to Germany's £7 billion. I think the figure may be nearer £9-10 that they pay now compared to our £7bn approx. Without the rebate tho, we'd now be the highest contributer. :/

PS: Dandy - I DO blame the current Labour administration and the previous Conservative one, but that doesn't stop be being annoyed by the problems/failings of the EU. Cheers for the reply tho dude - thorough as always!

PPS: Yep, the whole 'str8 bananas' episode was a right own goal for Eurosceptics, imo. I don't agree with baseless accusations against the EU (altho it might not sound like it from my posts, I guess). Give them credit for what they do I reckon, but also highlight fairly (and objectively if poss) the perceived problems. Opinions will still differ about the EU tho, I know. Oh...and I hear there's a compulsory quota of gay bananas alongside the str8 ones now (no offense to anyone). :wink::biggrin1:

 

[dandelion]

As I pointed out, during the height of the Irish economic rebirth it was already an enthusiastic contributor to the EU, and if you didn't follow the details of the referendum here on the Treaty of Lisbon then you should know that in order to achieve a yes vote "Brussels" was forced to continue to allow Ireland to keep its commissioner, and to concede a range of exemptions from certain aspects of the Lisbon Treaty which had formed the basis of much of the opposition to the Lisbon Treaty in the first referendum.

It's worth making the point that the first No vote was not a no vote to the EU per se, nor was it a no to the overall direction in which the EU is heading. Ireland has been solidly pro-EU and generally in favour of closer political and economic Union. Unlike the UK what anti-EU feeling there is is either tiny or of a highly specific nature, relating to specific aspects of EU policy. There is no significant secessionist movement in Ireland and no particular resentment of the power being given to the EU by the Irish government.

In fact one never hears the kind of grizzling and moaning one hears in the UK about EU regulations, and thankfully nor does one hear or read the blatant lies regarding EU regulations (the straight bananas scare e.t.c. never having been taken seriously here) which are common currency in the UK also. In fact generally EU law and regulations are considered to have had a positive effect on Ireland, in the areas of Human Rights especially, and Economic and Social reforms also.

hi hilaire
I would say myself that EU law has had a similar effect on human rights and social reform for the better in the UK also. The EU frequently takes up something which needs to be done but which no one locally thinks would be politically expedient. I can't say what the majority in the UK really think, but a number of people who are quite noisy publicly rubbish anything it does. I was wondering if you had any thoughts why the exact same things are received differently in Ireland?

I also think the Irish have learnt the lesson of how to work with the EU well, and through this ratification process have managed to win some handy extra concessions for themselves. But the impession we have had is that the recession also had a significant impact on the result of the second referendum vote. Perhaps that the Irish gave the matter more serious thought for the second vote in a more serious time. I think some of the fuss in the UK is because the Britsh like to moan. If there had been a referendum here on the treaty then we might have at last had a serious consideration of what the EU is and what we think about it.

I also think the Eu needs to stop proceeding as it has without proper consultation of the people affected. The lesson of Ireland might be that the Irish government had unrealistically become caried away with the project without thinking clearly about what it needed to secure for Ireland to win a vote. Other countries should maybe learn this lesson.

 

[798686]

I also think the Eu needs to stop proceeding as it has without proper consultation of the people affected. The lesson of Ireland might be that the Irish government had unrealistically become caried away with the project without thinking clearly about what it needed to secure for Ireland to win a vote. Other countries should maybe learn this lesson.

Yeh, I agree. I think also in terms of attitude towards the EU, the Irish felt they had less to lose over the years, and more to gain than the British did, by being a part of it.

I do agree the EU tries to do many good things - and that is ideal for some countries, but I still feel the UK would be better off as a (relatively) independent ally, rather than reluctant partner.

PS: (@ Hilaire) When was Ireland a net contributer??

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I'm sure its at least in part because at each step along the way the Irish consitution has required that a referendum be held, at accession, and each of the major EU treaties to be introduced since. Hence the more democratically based sense of support for the actions of the EU. It's also worth remembering that Ireland is a relatively young country, in which the authority of central government has not had time to become stitched in to the fabric of the Universe in the way it has in the UK. Having once been ruled from London, rule from Brussels doesn't seem so dreadful especially since we choose to be ruled from Brussels. It's also worth remembering that before accession to the EU Ireland was radically dependent on the goodwill of the UK even despite independence. The EU provides Ireland with the ability to counterbalance the influence of the UK and gives it a forum in which in theory it is completely equal.


The real reason Ireland voted no the first time round had nothing to do with the EU at all. It voted no because there was a very widespread desire to give the Irish government a bloody nose, to embarrass it in to responding to domestic problems completely unrelated to the EU . I think Ireland would have voted yes the second time round regardless of the economic collapse which took place in the interim. The margin might have been lower but the result would have been the same.


Oh and Joll, BIG OOPSY on my part, serious apologies, Ireland has been in receipt of a roughly 1billion Euro excess of its 10billion Euro contribution for the last two years and will become a net contributor in 2013. I get confused sometimes, I think it's all the Guinness and Leprechaun chasing, oh and the fighting and swearing :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

In any case a 0.6% benefit is hardly impressive, and there genuinely doesn't seem to be any anxiety regarding the change from net benefit to net contribution. Probably all the Guinness :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1:

hi hilaire
I would say myself that EU law has had a similar effect on human rights and social reform for the better in the UK also. The EU frequently takes up something which needs to be done but which no one locally thinks would be politically expedient. I can't say what the majority in the UK really think, but a number of people who are quite noisy publicly rubbish anything it does. I was wondering if you had any thoughts why the exact same things are received differently in Ireland?

I also think the Irish have learnt the lesson of how to work with the EU well, and through this ratification process have managed to win some handy extra concessions for themselves. But the impession we have had is that the recession also had a significant impact on the result of the second referendum vote. Perhaps that the Irish gave the matter more serious thought for the second vote in a more serious time. I think some of the fuss in the UK is because the Britsh like to moan. If there had been a referendum here on the treaty then we might have at last had a serious consideration of what the EU is and what we think about it.

I also think the Eu needs to stop proceeding as it has without proper consultation of the people affected. The lesson of Ireland might be that the Irish government had unrealistically become caried away with the project without thinking clearly about what it needed to secure for Ireland to win a vote. Other countries should maybe learn this lesson.

 

[Jason]

There's a lot of complexity in the way figures are calculated, but Joll's basic point stands - at the moment the UK is a net contributor of nearly £5bn pa and this is set to rise substantially, perhaps to £10bn. This is a significant sum.

We are told that we get various hard to quantify benefits from EU membership - and certainly we do. We also get various hard to quantify costs through compliance with EU legislation. Because these benefits and costs are hard to quantify you can find an expert to support any conclusion you want. In the end it seems hard to make any argument on the basis of these intangibles. Possibly they more or less cancel out (and possibly they don't).

We also have to put up with EU money spent in Britain to further EU goals which are not UK goals - but which count as EU spending within the UK. Much money in our universities for example comes from the EU and is to support EU ends (eg integration projects). This is not a first choice for Britain when our universities are struggling to keep solvent and our students are getting poorer and poorer.

The logic seems inescapable that the UK is going to say no to contributions to the EU at anything like the level we presently have - -whoever is in power after the next election. It occurs to me that Margaret Thatcher didn't tell Europe what she was going to do in advance, rather she just did it. I can't see much mileage in the Conservatives saying in advance what they will do - first get elected, then do it.

Joll's point about Ireland and Hilaire's response are both informative. There is a geopolitical logic in Ireland working closely with the UK. Yet since 1922 Irish popular culture has defined itself as separate to the UK, with the result that such close working seems unlikely. However what the two votes on Lisbon have done is shown how politicians can direct the views of a population, with a big swing in a little over a year. If the Irish political class decided that it was in the best interests of Ireland to work more closely with the UK then I think views would change. Curiously the UK would be very open to closer working with Ireland. When Ireland is cheated by a blind referee to the benefit of France then everyone in the UK feels sympathy for Ireland. And there's a lot of UK sympathy for the economic problems in Ireland (yes I know we've got our own in the UK, but Ireland's economic problems are in a different league.)