The European Union

[The Doctor]

Except it isn't is it? Do you really believe BMW will stop selling us cars or Thales radar and commincations if we left the EU?

Of course they wouldn't, hence why no one in the actual pro-EU argument is even bothering to bring it up as an excuse anymore, to compare it to a country trying to keep a currency that isn't theirs is ridiculous.

You have enough decent pro EU arguments out there without resorting to lies and scaremongering.

Did I say that? No. We would not have the deals we do outside the EU, simply because the deals we have are part of being in the EU. We'd still have trade deals, but there's no way they'd be as good without the eu bargaining position.

[Guest MattP]

A really good read here from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan regarding EU expenses and this weeks Farage story. Also explains just how absurd and corrupt the Clegg position of "we're in with nothing changing" is when it comes to how your money is spent.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100267778/if-nigel-farages-expenses-bother-you-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

 

 

I can predict one thing with certainty about l'affaire Farage: OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud office, will not find against the Ukip leader. This is because the sum in question is an allowance, not a claim. It is handed over unconditionally, with no requirement for receipts. Much of the row of the past 24 hours is based on a misunderstanding of this point and, in fairness, it is quite a hard concept to grasp. The 'general expenses allowance' is supposed to cover all the expenses related to an MEP's constituency work: office rent, telephone bills, postage, equipment and so on. But there is no itemisation of bills, and certainly no verification. When one of my British colleagues found himself with a slight surplus, and asked how to return it, he was told it couldn't be done. (I explain at greater length how the whole thing works in this article.)

 

Almost all British MEPs, together with a smattering of others, publish a breakdown of their expenditure (you can find mine, along with those of other Conservatives, here). Although the parliamentary authorities don't require it, we decided some years ago to declare what we were spending. Which leads to something of a paradox. If you simply trouser the cash, no questions asked, as many MEPs do, then you are in effect immune to critical scrutiny. It is only when you publish more information than is required that you invite the kind of complaint that Nigel Farage has now attracted.

Precisely the same thing happened to Nick Clegg when he was an MEP. Finding himself with a surplus on his travel allowance, which the European Parliament of course did not recognise, he spent it on staff and office costs. He was, in other words, trying to do the right thing instead of keeping the money for himself. Yet this led to press complaints that he was somehow illicitly funding his work. It was a neat example of how the Brussels expenses regime can be literally corrupting, penalising correct behaviour and rewarding venality.

 

It's not my job to defend Cleggie, obviously, any more than it's my job to defend Nigel. I am standing against candidates from both their parties next month. But I'd rather fight that election on the basis of policy than on fabricated outrage. There are examples of real wrongdoing in the EU: monstrous boondoggles in the agriculture, regional and foreign aid budgets. There are plenty of cases of real sleaze, too, in the European Parliament, which I've written about many times over the past 15 years. Yet they attract little attention.

It's right that Ukip should be subjected to the same critical coverage as every other party. Its vote rises whenever there are sleaze allegations of any sort, yet several of its MEPs have been involved in financial scams resulting, in two separate cases, in criminal convictions. Having presented itself as an anti-politics movement, the party invites a closer degree of scrutiny.

 

All I am asking for is a sense of proportion. Newspapers have a tendency to treat all allegations of impropriety as equally scandalous, barely disntinguishing between criminal acts and minor oversights. Real malfeasances – peers selling amendments for cash, for example, about the clearest example of corruption you could have in a democracy – attract less outrage than MPs submitting expenses claims which, while slightly Pooterish, are within the letter and spirit of the rules. We are, as Charles Moore observed the other day, a nation of tricoteuses, waiting by the guillotine for the next head to roll, not pausing to ask whether the execution was merited. It is not a pretty sight.

 

If the idea of Nigel Farage claiming Brussels expenses bothers you – or the idea of me claiming Brussels expenses, come to that – there is a simple solution. Vote for Britain to leave the EU. Of course, to get the chance to vote, you'll need a Conservative majority in Parliament, but that's another story.

[Strokes]

A really good read here from Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan regarding EU expenses and this weeks Farage story. Also explains just how absurd and corrupt the Clegg position of "we're in with nothing changing" is when it comes to how your money is spent.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100267778/if-nigel-farages-expenses-bother-you-vote-to-leave-the-eu/

A good article that matt, it sums up the reason why the EU is seen as a farce, by most intelligent beings.

[Dr The Singh]

I'm just sick and tired of foriegners comming into my country, I walk down belgrave road and the amount of brown people is decreasing day by day!!

[Strokes]

I'm just sick and tired of foriegners comming into my country, I walk down belgrave road and the amount of brown people is decreasing day by day!!

[absolutelegend]

I really dont see any tangible benefit to us being in the eu at this moment in time.

However, i'm not currently willing to vote ukip on a single policy basis, but I could change my mind come election day.

[MPH]

Now seems about the right time to slip this one in. Admittedly, this ruling was a couple of years ago...

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

[I am Rod Hull]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27284489

[Strokes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27284489

You lift the carpet, I'll find the brush.

[Guest MattP]

I've still got some sand.

[Captain...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27284489

 

First off:

 

It seems to contradict analysis by the Confederation of British Industry.

 

2 reports saying 2 different things, lets not publish this as the "truth".

 

Secondly what it actually says is irrelevant, whilst it may have been the case that we could have negotiated the same amount of free trade deals were we not in the EU, which we will never know, we can't go back and not join the EU and spend the last 20 years negotiating FTAs. All that I am interested in is the here and now and what would happen to those deals should we leave the EU, if they continue as they are, which in some ways would make sense as it is already set-up as a free trade agreement, then that is one thing. But if by leaving the EU we are excluded from these deals, then we will be significantly worse off by leaving the EU.

[Strokes]

First off:

2 reports saying 2 different things, lets not publish this as the "truth".

Secondly what it actually says is irrelevant, whilst it may have been the case that we could have negotiated the same amount of free trade deals were we not in the EU, which we will never know, we can't go back and not join the EU and spend the last 20 years negotiating FTAs. All that I am interested in is the here and now and what would happen to those deals should we leave the EU, if they continue as they are, which in some ways would make sense as it is already set-up as a free trade agreement, then that is one thing. But if by leaving the EU we are excluded from these deals, then we will be significantly worse off by leaving the EU.

It proves that the EU isn't value for money, in the here and now. It doesn't say how much or how difficult things might be if we leave but these things aren't really predictable. How much is our membership again?

[purpleronnie]

Yet the Confederation of British Industry say being in the EU is essential, and businesses seem to agree with over 3/4 being in favour of remaining in the EU.  I'd rather be with them than with people who 'just want a change' or 'don't like all these immigrants', too risky and there's no proof than coming out will have any benefit whatsoever.

[Captain...]

It proves that the EU isn't value for money, in the here and now. It doesn't say how much or how difficult things might be if we leave but these things aren't really predictable. How much is our membership again?

 

It doesn't prove anything, there are other reports that state that we benefit from the EU, it is all speculation as we have no idea what state we would be in if we hadn't joined the EU, saying Switzerland agreed more FTAs than the EU, is irrelevant, we are not Switzerland, we do not have their preferential tax laws and Export surplus, nor do we have a number of bordering countries with which it is easier to make free trade deals, we are not Switzerland and what they acheived while we were part of the EU is irrelevant, and proves nothing.

 

They aren't predictable now because nobody is saying what will happen should we leave, which makes debating it at this point impossible, if it comes to light that leaving will result in us losing all these existing trade deals would you change your mind about leaving?

[Strokes]

It doesn't prove anything, there are other reports that state that we benefit from the EU, it is all speculation as we have no idea what state we would be in if we hadn't joined the EU, saying Switzerland agreed more FTAs than the EU, is irrelevant, we are not Switzerland, we do not have their preferential tax laws and Export surplus, nor do we have a number of bordering countries with which it is easier to make free trade deals, we are not Switzerland and what they acheived while we were part of the EU is irrelevant, and proves nothing.

They aren't predictable now because nobody is saying what will happen should we leave, which makes debating it at this point impossible, if it comes to light that leaving will result in us losing all these existing trade deals would you change your mind about leaving?

No I wouldn't change my mind, as to honest, I simply wouldn't believe it. There might be short term issues but long term, there wouldn't be.

Switzerland is far from irrelevant, it is a great example of what can be achieved outside the EU. The contries we import of would not want to lose trade, a deal would be struck up pretty sharp.

[Strokes]

Yet the Confederation of British Industry say being in the EU is essential, and businesses seem to agree with over 3/4 being in favour of remaining in the EU. I'd rather be with them than with people who 'just want a change' or 'don't like all these immigrants', too risky and there's no proof than coming out will have any benefit whatsoever.

http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/majority-of-businesses-support-a-referendum-on-eu-membership,-says-bcc.html

[Guest MattP]

Yet the Confederation of British Industry say being in the EU is essential, and businesses seem to agree with over 3/4 being in favour of remaining in the EU. I'd rather be with them than with people who 'just want a change' or 'don't like all these immigrants', too risky and there's no proof than coming out will have any benefit whatsoever.

Any link for this?

Figures I'm seeing from business is far different and more and more seem to be switching to the anti EU side the longer this debate goes on.

Am having a chuckle watching all the lefties side with the big businesses and fat cats importing cheap labour though, what a turnaround.

[purpleronnie]

Any link for this?

Figures I'm seeing from business is far different and more and more seem to be switching to the anti EU side the longer this debate goes on.

Am having a chuckle watching all the lefties side with the big businesses and fat cats importing cheap labour though, what a turnaround.

http://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2013/09/8-out-of-10-firms-say-uk-must-stay-in-eu-cbi-yougov-survey/

 

8 out of 10 firms say UK must stay in EU - CBI/YouGov survey Leaving would hit investment and trade - and make us less competitive

 

12th September 2013 Firms also identify several priorities for reform

If a referendum on the future membership of the European Union was held tomorrow, a substantial majority of CBI members would support staying in, fearing an exit would affect access to trading markets and business investment, leaving the UK less competitive. That’s according to a new snapshot CBI/YouGov survey.

The survey of more than 400 businesses employing more than 1.5 million direct employees, shows 78% of firms favour staying in the EU, including 77% of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Just 10% think it is in their interests for the UK to leave the EU (11% of SMEs). Despite frustrations over the current relationship, and the burden of some regulations, particularly employment law, the survey shows most businesses feel the positives more than outweigh the negatives.

But firms do want to see the relationship reformed. Businesses are calling for a reduction in unnecessary regulations, rules to be implemented evenly across all member states and an end to the ‘gold-plating’ of EU legislation.

John Cridland, CBI Director-General, said:

“This sends a clear message that most CBI members, big and small, support UK membership of the EU.

“Firms want what is best for jobs and growth, and there is genuine concern that an exit would hit business investment and access to the world’s largest trading bloc.

“The UK should take the lead on the push for reform and make sure rules are evenly applied across the EU. Businesses are also concerned about the UK gold-plating legislation from Brussels.

“Businesses do have some serious concerns about the EU, but ultimately they want the UK inside the tent winning the argument for reform.â€

Among the survey’s key findings:

• 71% said the UK’s membership has had a positive or very positive impact on their businesses, with 16% stating it had no impact and 13% that the impact was negative
• Among the SMEs surveyed, 67% think membership of the EU has had a positive impact (16% no impact, 16% negative)
• When asked to rank their priorities for reform, 46% wanted an end to ‘gold-plating’ of EU legislation and 39% wanted to see EU rules applied evenly across all member states. Other priorities for reform include reducing regulation (39%) and making structural reforms for a more competitive EU (36%)
• 75% think leaving the EU would have a negative impact on the overall level of foreign direct investment in the UK – 9% thought it would increase investment. 35% warned they would be likely to reduce their own business investment in the event of an EU exit, compared to 51% saying there would be no impact and only 6% who stated they would boost investment
• 86% believe that leaving the EU would have a negative impact on UK firms’ access to EU markets (11% thought it would have no impact and only 1% a positive impact)
• 59% thought that an EU exit would reduce the international competitiveness of the UK as a whole, with 15% believing the UK would be unaffected and 23% that there would be a positive impact.

The survey shows a majority of companies see the EU as having a positive impact on their businesses, in terms of their ability to buy and sell products inside and outside EU markets without prohibitive taxes or tariffs, and to recruit staff from across the EU.

However, firms are concerned by the potential impact an EU exit would have on their businesses and the UK as a whole. Some benefits to leaving were identified, such as a reduced regulatory burden. A significant minority of firms felt that an EU exit would have no impact on them, but very few pointed to positive benefits. A bigger proportion said that the UK leaving would have a negative impact judged against most criteria, including the UK’s international competitiveness, its ability to participate in EU supply chains and access to EU markets.

On the impact to business of our current EU membership, the survey found:

Significant numbers of firms believe the current relationship has a positive impact on their own businesses which includes:

• The ability to buy and sell products without taxes and tariffs on trade flows in EU markets (76% positive, 17% no impact, 1% negative) and outside EU markets as a result of trade deals (58% positive, 30% no impact, 2% negative)
• To recruit and transfer staff from across the EU (63% positive, 28% no impact, 1% negative), although large firms (73%) were stronger advocates than SMEs (48%)
• Common product standards across the EU (52% positive, 27% no impact, 15% negative)

But there have been some areas where there has been a negative impact on their own businesses, including:

• Attempts to create similar employment law across the EU, in areas such as working hours, was the one aspect where a higher proportion felt there had been a negative impact (49% negative, 25% no impact, 22% positive).

On major concerns about the negative impact of an EU exit on their own businesses:

• On employment levels (42% negative, 49% no impact, 5% positive)
• Access to trade in EU markets (67% negative, 25% no impact, 3% positive)
• Overall business competitiveness (55% negative, 27% no impact, 15% positive)
• Access to skilled workers (47% negative, 46% no impact, 3% positive)
• On their ability to attract foreign direct investment from outside the EU (32% negative, 46% no impact, 5% positive) and from the EU itself (42% negative, 40% no impact, 2% positive)
• But many firms do recognise benefits from an exit reflecting areas of the relationship they would like to reform. 52% said they would expect the overall regulatory burden to lessen (23% saying it would make no difference and 20% saying the position would worsen).

On the UK’s influence in the EU:

• Businesses believe the UK does currently have influence on EU policies that affect them (72% significant or some influence, 27% not very much or no influence) and expect this to remain the case in the future (74% significant or some influence, 25% not very much or no influence)
• But if the UK left the EU firms felt there would be a negative impact on its influence (65% negative, 16% no impact, 15% positive).

 

 

[Captain...]

No I wouldn't change my mind, as to honest, I simply wouldn't believe it. There might be short term issues but long term, there wouldn't be.

Switzerland is far from irrelevant, it is a great example of what can be achieved outside the EU. The contries we import of would not want to lose trade, a deal would be struck up pretty sharp.

 

Switzerland is a great example of what can be achieved outside the EU over 40 years.

[Strokes]

Switzerland is a great example of what can be achieved outside the EU over 40 years.

Thats a pretty desperate arguement. It wont take 40 years or even close to it to set up trade deals, neither would we pull out the day after the referendum.

[Guest MattP]

Cheers Ron.

 

Interesting that most companies still want to see some serious renegotiation with the EU though, maybe that shows Cameron is playing the game spot on with his attitude towards the whole EU debate.

 

Also quite telling that despite the figures of wanting to stay in most companies believe withdrawal would have absolutely no effect on the employment market.