catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
"Abandon country".
Oh well if the economy tanks at least there'll be fewer people wanting to migrate to the UK.
- Status
Oh well if the economy tanks at least there'll be fewer people wanting to migrate to the UK.
Airfix
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,047
I'm ok with contributing to the EU budget, but be realistic, we're talking for the purposes of free trade here, not the employment of an appointed Commissioner 70 odd MEPs, CAP susbsidy CFP etc or voluntarily opting into the kind of programmes that the Norwegian government has chosen to opt into and pay for, so it will be a lot cheaper.
EFTA's wbsite says that EEA related activities ammount to 7,914,000 CHF (Swiss Francs) which works out at £6,271,053.50 British Pounds or $8,121,901.00 US Dollars
Source: http://www.efta.int/About-EFTA/EFTA-Budget-748
£6.27m a year would be a significant saving over the almost £8.5bn we've been paying per year for membership. Except it wouldn't be £6.27m a year to us, that's what the combined membership of the EEA (currently three countries) pay per year for trade related activities.
Norway itself participates beyond trade, thus it pays more.
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Coopperation-in-programmes-and-agencies/#.V68e7qJGCHs
We would not have to participate in any of those programmes in order to have a free trade agreement or EEA membership. Those are entirely voluntary options for Norway, but they do come at a cost.
We could pay that extra cost (if we want to).
EFTA's wbsite says that EEA related activities ammount to 7,914,000 CHF (Swiss Francs) which works out at £6,271,053.50 British Pounds or $8,121,901.00 US Dollars
Source: http://www.efta.int/About-EFTA/EFTA-Budget-748
£6.27m a year would be a significant saving over the almost £8.5bn we've been paying per year for membership. Except it wouldn't be £6.27m a year to us, that's what the combined membership of the EEA (currently three countries) pay per year for trade related activities.
Norway itself participates beyond trade, thus it pays more.
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Coopperation-in-programmes-and-agencies/#.V68e7qJGCHs
We would not have to participate in any of those programmes in order to have a free trade agreement or EEA membership. Those are entirely voluntary options for Norway, but they do come at a cost.
We could pay that extra cost (if we want to).
Norway participates and pays more because it has to in order to qualify for EEA membership. The idea that a country can be a member solely by paying for the EEA admin costs is a case of more magic thinking (not least because the. EU bears the vast majority of the costs of the open market).
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
No it's an open your eyes and stop being in denial argument. It'll be years before we are even back to where we started.
Airfix
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,047
I have opened my eyes they've been open the whole time.
Sure there'll be difficulties at first, but in the long term it should be worth it.
I've looked at the EU in depth for years. I've been to Belgium. I've met Belgian Euroskeptics too.
Some aspects of the EU are good, some aspects are very bad.
Jeremy Paxman made a good programme about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGOzhhOAF8
The EU built a €21m visitors centre to promote the organisation.
There's a lot of waste.
It's biggest flaw however is that it's not a free trade organisation, it's a federal and political customs union with a questionable monetary union.
It's effect on the third world has been terrible. It's highly corrupt, inefficient in energy logistics and bureaucracy. If you want to know what your MEPs expenses are, for a long time the only way was to either go to Brussels or Strasbourg and meet the keeper of the register. Photography was not allowed, hand written notes only.
Not a single Commissioner has been elected, they're all appointed and they are the ones who propose all the EU's policies. What good is that ?
It should be elected MEPs proposing the policies and voting on it like our House of Commons does, instead they work like the Lords.
Block grants to MEPs instead of audited expenses are another gripe of mine.
Yes be skeptical of Brexit, but look at what caused Brexit too, the EU is far from perfect.
Most people wanted to take back a lot of political power from it.
A lot of people want to take back control of our borders too and use the immigration system the Americans use. I'm happy going with the EEA myself, but a lot of people want a points based system, that doesn't (as some remainers have accused people of) make people xenophobic.
Sure there'll be difficulties at first, but in the long term it should be worth it.
I've looked at the EU in depth for years. I've been to Belgium. I've met Belgian Euroskeptics too.
Some aspects of the EU are good, some aspects are very bad.
Jeremy Paxman made a good programme about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGOzhhOAF8
The EU built a €21m visitors centre to promote the organisation.
There's a lot of waste.
It's biggest flaw however is that it's not a free trade organisation, it's a federal and political customs union with a questionable monetary union.
It's effect on the third world has been terrible. It's highly corrupt, inefficient in energy logistics and bureaucracy. If you want to know what your MEPs expenses are, for a long time the only way was to either go to Brussels or Strasbourg and meet the keeper of the register. Photography was not allowed, hand written notes only.
Not a single Commissioner has been elected, they're all appointed and they are the ones who propose all the EU's policies. What good is that ?
It should be elected MEPs proposing the policies and voting on it like our House of Commons does, instead they work like the Lords.
Block grants to MEPs instead of audited expenses are another gripe of mine.
Yes be skeptical of Brexit, but look at what caused Brexit too, the EU is far from perfect.
Most people wanted to take back a lot of political power from it.
A lot of people want to take back control of our borders too and use the immigration system the Americans use. I'm happy going with the EEA myself, but a lot of people want a points based system, that doesn't (as some remainers have accused people of) make people xenophobic.
CoolSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 689
Airfix, you have astonishing patience here... I doubt I could match that!
I voted Brexit for similar (libertarian) reasons as you. I largely ignored much of the nonsense that was promoted by the very poor campaigns run by both sides.
To my mind, leave ran a pretty poor campaign, but ultimately the remain campaign was even worse. You can see project fear alive and well even in these forums, with people declaring that the EU will somehow punish us for being nasty enough to leave the EU (!). In fact, the EU have a really tough problem; if they give us a good deal, more will want to go. If they give us a bad deal, it will create further divisions within Europe, particularly in those countries who are politically closer to the UK (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic). While the EU has some trading clout through size, the divisions within it complicate things in a way most people don't appreciate.
Like you, I would be happy with an EEA type solution. This would remove us from the hated CAP and fisheries policies, which is a massive gain as these EU policies are regressive, protectionist and expensive. Being out of CAP alone should take around £3.8 bn from our EU contributions. In the short term there will need to be continuity funding, but gradually we can embrace modern efficiencies in agriculture that are largely blocked by the EU (e.g. GMO) that will enable subsidies to be reduced, encouraging international competition.
The EEA deal is a business friendly solution and given how long it takes the EU to negotiate the simplest thing, it is one of the few options viable in the timeframe.
The exact form of the agreement may be "EEA-plus" depending on what options we care to negotiate. One proposal was to negotiate EEA plus some level of input into single market legislation, which is an interesting option, but would probably require us to contribute more.
Another possibility is EEA plus some restrictions on free movement, this doesn't appeal much to me - I'm white collar libertarian so have no issue with free movement, but recognise that not all Brexit voters did so for the same reason; the blue collar voters in the Labour heartlands want limits on immigration and it is important to recognise their concerns, even though my preference would be for free movement. (The extant EEA emergency brake on immigration is a pragmatic and sensible article - that would be enough for me, but perhaps not for others)
Fisheries policies are an interesting point - the French fleet will be decimated if denied access to UK fishing waters, and this will be a key negotiating coin for the UK side.
There are some very real and interesting points of negotiation but sadly it is almost impossible to have these discussions with the angry remain side. The example you give here is a good one - you make the point about limits on VAT rate which have prevented the UK government from enacting certain policies. Again there are interesting points here - some years ago energy bills were going up due to market conditions, but also due to government policies imposing consumer subsidies on bills to support renewable energy generation. The government wanted to cut the rate of VAT on energy to offset the cost of these subsidies - but couldn't because of EU rules. Another example are feminine sanitary products (ok ok tampons) which the UK gov wanted to axe VAT on, but again were not allowed to by the EU.
So there are lots of interesting policy options around VAT - including the good example you gave of the consumer stimulus policy by Brown. People stuck with ideologies cannot see these policies and can only see the black and white false dichotomy of "under 15% forever" and "over 15% forever". Under such blinkered views no sensible dialogue is even possible.
The UK economy is strong and I have no doubt that the UK could thrive within the EU or outside the EU. While I am supportive of working closely with our European neighbours the EU is a seriously broken organisation - witness the ineptitude of the handling of the Greek crisis - and its luddite and protectionist views, for example, on agriculture, we are probably best out.
I only come by this forum occasionally these days so I'll not likely respond much on this thread (I don't see the value in it) but best of luck presenting the voice of reason here
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
What's the source for that?
If they are voluntary, Norway obviously thinks participation worthwhile. It's not immediately obvious why the UK wouldn't.
IMO this is the problem. Until someone sits down and fully looks at the figures we have no idea if leaving is a cheaper option.
Unless of course someone has looked at the figures?
Last edited:
Kind of should have probably done that before the binding referendum
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
Binding?
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
But he didn't needs balls to call a referendum that would be disastrous for his premiership and the country, fortunately, since neither affects him seriously.
Airfix
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,047
Read the EEA agreement treaty:
http://www.efta.int/media/documents...t/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
Nothing in it requires Norway to participate in the European Defence Agency project or Europol (for examples).
Norway has chosen to go beyond what is required of it. In doing so, it spends more than would otherwise be required (for trade).
Airfix
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,047
Airfix, you have astonishing patience here... I doubt I could match that!
I voted Brexit for similar (libertarian) reasons as you. I largely ignored much of the nonsense that was promoted by the very poor campaigns run by both sides.
To my mind, leave ran a pretty poor campaign, but ultimately the remain campaign was even worse. You can see project fear alive and well even in these forums, with people declaring that the EU will somehow punish us for being nasty enough to leave the EU (!). In fact, the EU have a really tough problem; if they give us a good deal, more will want to go. If they give us a bad deal, it will create further divisions within Europe, particularly in those countries who are politically closer to the UK (e.g. Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic). While the EU has some trading clout through size, the divisions within it complicate things in a way most people don't appreciate.
Like you, I would be happy with an EEA type solution. This would remove us from the hated CAP and fisheries policies, which is a massive gain as these EU policies are regressive, protectionist and expensive. Being out of CAP alone should take around £3.8 bn from our EU contributions. In the short term there will need to be continuity funding, but gradually we can embrace modern efficiencies in agriculture that are largely blocked by the EU (e.g. GMO) that will enable subsidies to be reduced, encouraging international competition.
The EEA deal is a business friendly solution and given how long it takes the EU to negotiate the simplest thing, it is one of the few options viable in the timeframe.
The exact form of the agreement may be "EEA-plus" depending on what options we care to negotiate. One proposal was to negotiate EEA plus some level of input into single market legislation, which is an interesting option, but would probably require us to contribute more.
Another possibility is EEA plus some restrictions on free movement, this doesn't appeal much to me - I'm white collar libertarian so have no issue with free movement, but recognise that not all Brexit voters did so for the same reason; the blue collar voters in the Labour heartlands want limits on immigration and it is important to recognise their concerns, even though my preference would be for free movement. (The extant EEA emergency brake on immigration is a pragmatic and sensible article - that would be enough for me, but perhaps not for others)
Fisheries policies are an interesting point - the French fleet will be decimated if denied access to UK fishing waters, and this will be a key negotiating coin for the UK side.
There are some very real and interesting points of negotiation but sadly it is almost impossible to have these discussions with the angry remain side. The example you give here is a good one - you make the point about limits on VAT rate which have prevented the UK government from enacting certain policies. Again there are interesting points here - some years ago energy bills were going up due to market conditions, but also due to government policies imposing consumer subsidies on bills to support renewable energy generation. The government wanted to cut the rate of VAT on energy to offset the cost of these subsidies - but couldn't because of EU rules. Another example are feminine sanitary products (ok ok tampons) which the UK gov wanted to axe VAT on, but again were not allowed to by the EU.
So there are lots of interesting policy options around VAT - including the good example you gave of the consumer stimulus policy by Brown. People stuck with ideologies cannot see these policies and can only see the black and white false dichotomy of "under 15% forever" and "over 15% forever". Under such blinkered views no sensible dialogue is even possible.
The UK economy is strong and I have no doubt that the UK could thrive within the EU or outside the EU. While I am supportive of working closely with our European neighbours the EU is a seriously broken organisation - witness the ineptitude of the handling of the Greek crisis - and its luddite and protectionist views, for example, on agriculture, we are probably best out.
I only come by this forum occasionally these days so I'll not likely respond much on this thread (I don't see the value in it) but best of luck presenting the voice of reason here
Thank you!
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Are you seriously expecting 100% vote going the way UK want ??? No seriously ? That is not called the British empire you know, it is the EU.
This is really typical of people not having realistic expectation. You got 97+% your way (it went the way you wanted to vote) but you are bickering about the 3%.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
No you would not have to participate to those program. You would have to still finance them through your EEA participation cost if the EU remaining member are not idiot.
In other word you would pay the same amount, but with less freedom to vote and less freedom to participate to existing programs.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
There's actually so much wrongness jammed into the original statement its hard to know where to start but I think the key thing is the mindset it demonstrates. Us v The EU. It seems fairly typical of Leaver thinking that this is how they see the world.
CoolSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 689
Does Rule 0 still apply on this forum? I guess it is okay to call newcomers to the forum idiots if you disagree with them. At least it validates my view that this discussion is not worth the effort to engage in.
I'm sure it's not in breach of any Forum rule to suggest that
if the EU remaining member are not idiot
i.e. that member states of the EU are probably not idiotic.CoolSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 689
Ah, okay, the wording with singular "idiot" makes no sense with reference to the (plural) EU states but would make sense referring to the (singular) quoted author, albeit missing a comma. I understand your point that the author has made a grammatical error which may not read the way I have assumed. Replacing "idiot" with "idiots" would change it to not be a rule 0 breach; as would your suggested change. I would recommend the author edits the comment to make it clear that your suggestion was intended rather than how it reads. (Not sure if this is a typo or simply that the authors first language is not English)
Of course the author is quite wrong; the budget will be a part of the negotiations. The EU is in a far more delicate situation than many realise. The UK is not the only state disillusioned with the EU structures, and attempting to punish the UK would not only go against article 8 of the treaty of the EU, it would most likely create further divisions within the EU - given the delicate state of the EU today, that would be very unwise. Luckily I believe the EU negotiators will realise this and behave in a manner consistent with article 8 of the treaties that they are bound by.
- Status