Merged Now What?

[The Don]

Maybe a bit of history is in order. Not to seek an excuse for the excesses of the CAP, but to explain its motivations, at least the motivations of its main designer, Dutch Commissioner Sicco Mansholt.

During the winter of 1944/1945, there was a famine in the Netherlands, the "hunger winter", notably in the western urbanized area around the big cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague. The Dutch railways were on strike since Market Garden to support the war effort and the Nazis refused to run trains, so there was little transport of food from rural areas to the cities. Many city folk, like my mom and her siblings, went out on bikes on "hunger trips" for tens or even 100 miles to procure basic food like beans and potatoes from farmers. The famine cost approximately 22,000 people their lives, an unequaled occurrence in a rich, first-world country.

Mansholt was himself a rather well-to-do farmer and a social-democrat. He was active in organizing food supply to the starving city folk. And this famine has made a lasting impression on him and given him his main motivation, both in his job as Dutch Minster for Agriculture and later in his job as European Commissioner for Agriculture: never again hunger.

tbh a similar societal memory is one of the reasons why the agricultural lobby punches far above its weight in the UK. Our memory of World War II, rationing and hunger. and the sterling efforts of the British farmers, land girls and public have left a clear impression that the UK should not be (too) dependent on food imports and that agriculture is a crucial industry.

IMO the trouble is that this has led to a certain amount of "featherbedding" for large agricultural concerns whilst at the same time failing to support smaller producers. This in turn has led to large, profitable but comparatively non-innovating large concerns and individual farmers on the verge of bankruptcy.

IMO there isn't enough investment in UK "exotic" food production. The Netherlands should IMO be a model of what can be achieved with a so-so climate but good technology. The blame for all of this does not sit at the feet of the EU - but that's where successive UK governments of all hues have placed it.

 

[Airfix]

I'm confused. Should the UK with 63 million people pay the same as Norway with 5 million? Is that a reasonable expectation?

As EFTA + EEA only requires a small budget as it's just a free trade deal, we're not going to be paying a great deal.
But lets say you're right, lets say we pay 12.6 x more in line with our population being proportionally larger.
That works out as 151,222,516.2 CHF or £120,524,344.00 a year.
£120.5m a year is still far cheaper than EU membership.

Thousands of billions? Is that correct?

No, sorry I copied and pasted the figure from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44
Should have changed the comma to a full stop to indicate that it's billions. £8.473bn.

 

[The Don]

The USA with 318.9m only pays $1m USD per year to have free trade with NAFTA and that works out per capita at, $ 0.0031357792411414 USD.

I'd like to see the breakdown of this. To me this looks like the U.S. contribution to the paperclip budget and completely overlooks the main costs of being part of NAFTA.

 

[Airfix]

The EP votes on approving individual Commissioners and can kick the Commission out.

Maybe so but we can't pick our own Commissioner.

You may not be aware of the lesser known Western European Union, which was a defence treaty and was subsumed into the EU in 2009.

I was aware of it. As you say, it was subsumed into the EU in 2009.

 

[McHrozni]

Maybe so but we can't pick our own Commissioner.

Can you pick your own government ministers?

McHrozni

 

[Airfix]

You're still harping on about only the budget of EFTA?

Because it's relevant.
EEA related activities 7,914,000 CHF

EFTA/EU statistical cooperation 744,000 CHF

EU/EFTA and EFTA cooperation
programmes 2,710,000 CHF.

Nothing in the EFTA FAQ or the EEA agreement says that a member would have to participate in the Battlegroups, or Schengen, or other EU programmes that Norway chooses to participate in.
Therefore you are comparing apples and oranges.

Even if we were to pay to participate in the European Social fund and the European Regional Development fund, that's £1.249bn a year instead of £8.473bn a year and would still represent a significant financial saving over full membership.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44

 

[ddt]

Maybe so but we can't pick our own Commissioner.

Pardon? The UK government gets to pick one Commissioner, like many other EU countries.

You don't get a say in the members of your cabinet either. When Teresa May feels like it, she may shuffle up the whole cabinet over the weekend.

I was aware of it. As you say, it was subsumed into the EU in 2009.

So why did you complain about the EU having a chief of staff?

 

[Airfix]

Can you pick your own government ministers?

McHrozni

We elect an MP. The party with the most MPs forms a government.
One's MP can become a minister. If you don't like your MP you can vote against your MP.

I would prefer a proportional system to first past the post, and I would prefer to abolish the Lords and replace the Lords with an elected house too.

But just because our own domestic system isn't perfect and needs reform, it doesn't make an argument for the EU system valid.

The EU is in even more need of reform.

 

[Klimax]

Maybe so but we can't pick our own Commissioner.



I was aware of it. As you say, it was subsumed into the EU in 2009.

So how do you pick your own Minister? What is mechanism for that?

 

[Airfix]

So how do you pick your own Minister? What is mechanism for that?

We elect an MP. The party with the most MPs forms a government.
One's MP can become a minister. If you don't like your MP you can vote against your MP.

I would prefer a proportional system to first past the post, and I would prefer to abolish the Lords and replace the Lords with an elected house too.

But just because our own domestic system isn't perfect and needs reform, it doesn't make an argument for the EU system valid.

The EU is in even more need of reform.

As I said.

 

[Airfix]

I'd like to see the breakdown of this. To me this looks like the U.S. contribution to the paperclip budget and completely overlooks the main costs of being part of NAFTA.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...BLMQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=nafta budget&f=false

 

[The Don]

Because it's relevant.
EEA related activities 7,914,000 CHF

EFTA/EU statistical cooperation 744,000 CHF

EU/EFTA and EFTA cooperation
programmes 2,710,000 CHF.

Nothing in the EFTA FAQ or the EEA agreement says that a member would have to participate in the Battlegroups, or Schengen, or other EU programmes that Norway chooses to participate in.
Therefore you are comparing apples and oranges.

Even if we were to pay to participate in the European Social fund and the European Regional Development fund, that's £1.249bn a year instead of £8.473bn a year and would still represent a significant financial saving over full membership.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44

And you keep ignoring post after post which tries to explain why this is not valid.

 

[Klimax]

We elect an MP. The party with the most MPs forms a government.
One's MP can become a minister. If you don't like your MP you can vote against your MP.

I would prefer a proportional system to first past the post, and I would prefer to abolish the Lords and replace the Lords with an elected house too.

But just because our own domestic system isn't perfect and needs reform, it doesn't make an argument for the EU system valid.

The EU is in even more need of reform.

Sorry, you are quite wrong. EU has similar mechanism. If you actually learned how EP works, you'd know that.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00006/Supervisory-powers

The European Parliament has the right to approve and dismiss the European Commission. Since 1994, commissioners-designate have been required to appear before an EP hearing. Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU heads of state propose a candidate for Commission President, taking into account the results of European elections. The candidate is elected by the EP.

The EP can censure the Commission and ultimately dismiss it. So far, none of the eight motions of censure brought before Parliament has been adopted. In 1999, the Santer Commission stepped down before Parliament forced its resignation.

The EP ensures democratic control over the Commission, which regularly submits reports to Parliament including an annual report on EU activities and on the implementation of the budget. Once a year, the Commission President gives a State of the Union address to plenary. Parliament regularly invites the Commission to initiate new policies and the Commission is required to reply to oral and written questions from MEPs.

Sorry, but you are late. We the public have already nice control over direction. We have just to use it. (Elections and communication on proposals)

Hell, EU is far more democratic then most of other countries, bar Switzerland. But you don't know anything, so you are still spouting nonsense which was maybe relevant years ago...

 

[Klimax]

As I said.

So , no control over who is your minister, because it is all done by party. Or did you vote for miss May? Did you? Did you vote for Boris Johnson or any other of current ministers?

 

[McHrozni]

We elect an MP. The party with the most MPs forms a government.

In other words, you have exactly as much power to choose your own ministers as you have to choose your own MPs. Yet UK has no democratic deficit, but the EU has for that reason.

But just because our own domestic system isn't perfect and needs reform, it doesn't make an argument for the EU system valid.

It does if it doesn't have some of the deficiencies the British system does, and the deficiencies you think are shared between the two don't need reform in the UK.

Both are true, so this is actually a very solid argument as to why what you're selling is a bunch of dingo kidneys.

McHrozni

 

[Andy_Ross]

Of course post-Brexit we will have the temporary (for a couple of decades) cost of running the Brexit department and the permanent cost of running the international trade department - and probably additional costs in other departments of doing things that our EU membership covers us for.

Have to pay our own bribes to trade customers you mean? Oops, I mean commission.

 

[ddt]

Because it's relevant.
EEA related activities 7,914,000 CHF

EFTA/EU statistical cooperation 744,000 CHF

EU/EFTA and EFTA cooperation
programmes 2,710,000 CHF.

Nothing in the EFTA FAQ or the EEA agreement says that a member would have to participate in the Battlegroups, or Schengen, or other EU programmes that Norway chooses to participate in.
Therefore you are comparing apples and oranges.

Even if we were to pay to participate in the European Social fund and the European Regional Development fund, that's £1.249bn a year instead of £8.473bn a year and would still represent a significant financial saving over full membership.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._finances_2015_final_web_09122015.pdf#page=44

I can't see how you calculate that number from that link.

But where do you get these Norwegian Battlegroups, or costs for Schengen? The EUR 860mn I cited from that EFTA FAQ is the sum of two numbers:
1) EUR 400 mn in EEA Grants
2) EUR 460 mn in several EU programmes with EFTA participation

I can't find those battlegroups or costs for Schengen, in any of those links. Can you help me?

 

[Airfix]

And you keep ignoring post after post which tries to explain why this is not valid.

I have read post after post of invalid explainations trying to say that evidence based posts are invalid.

We keep going round and round and round in circles.
I get it that you want to be in the EU, I really do, but democracy is against you. We're leaving.
We now need to find a way of making leaving work.

The thread is called Now What ? Not "What was".

We need to look to the future and find answers.
If we haven't got skilled negotiators, the answer is that we need to hire some.

If it takes time to get a free trade agreement, it takes time.
If it hurts the economy in the short / medium term, that's unfortunate, but people have voted.

I suggested that we rejoin EFTA and sign the EEA agreement as it's the option with the least disruption. Remaining in the EU is not an option, the public have voted against it.

The options now are EFTA - EEA / or a new agreement or WTO MFN rules.

I say EEA, for all the moaning and groaning I see, nobody has a better suggestion.

 

[Lothian]

We elect an MP. The party with the most MPs forms a government.
One's MP can become a minister. If you don't like your MP you can vote against your MP.

The UK has about 120 ministers. The most you can do is vote against one and if the majority of voters in your area agree they are out of a post.

This is because the Prime minister chooses ministers as well as the EU commissioner. It really needs a change of government to radically change either. Of course there is nothing to stop the UK commissioner being elected. It is the UK government that chooses to take that option away from the people.

I would prefer a proportional system to first past the post, and I would prefer to abolish the Lords and replace the Lords with an elected house too.

Like in Europe?

But just because our own domestic system isn't perfect and needs reform, it doesn't make an argument for the EU system valid.

The EU is in even more need of reform.

Just because you don't like minor parts of the EU system doesn't mean the whole system is flawed or unrepresentative.

 

[Airfix]

I can't see how you calculate that number from that link.

But where do you get these Norwegian Battlegroups, or costs for Schengen? The EUR 860mn I cited from that EFTA FAQ is the sum of two numbers:
1) EUR 400 mn in EEA Grants
2) EUR 460 mn in several EU programmes with EFTA participation

I can't find those battlegroups or costs for Schengen, in any of those links. Can you help me?

Norway participates in the Nordic Battlegroup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Battlegroup
It is also in Schengen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area

I too cannot find the exact costs. I mentioned them because the EEA agreement does not require Norway to participate in those projects.