The UK and the EU - what gives?

Great Debates
1

It seems lately that barely a week goes by without some new horror story about the antics of the European Union, or at least, someone getting upset about something the EU has apparently done.

The UK in particular seems to have a very sour relationship with Brussels at the moment, and it looks likely that we’ll be getting a referendum on whether to leave or not within the next five years, given the rise of UKIP, whose raison d’etre is to get the UK out, and the fact that Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are running scared. The Tories have proposed a referendum of their own if they in next year’s election, Labour have lost the guts to do anything but watch, and the traditional pro-European party, the Lib Dems, are collapsing.

But is there anything to this anti-EU feeling that is of any substance, or is it mainly a convenient scapegoat?

Take the latest scandal, for example, this bill of £1.7bn that the UK apparently owes and is being described as a ‘prosperity tax’ by some. I honestly can’t get that upset about it - it’s like being upset that your tax payments go up when your salary increases. Duh, that’s what happens with tax.

Object to how the EU functions, fine, object to its cost, sure, all valid points of criticism and perhaps it does lead to the UK being better off out. But I honestly don’t know if it is.

Long story short: it seems the anti-EU lot are prevailing, but not for good reasons, simply scare stories. The pro-EU lot have gone silent, and I am unsure why. Can Dopers provide good, sound, evidence-based information for and against the EU? Any good sources for busting euromyths, or at least getting the Straight Dope?

I am open-minded about whether we should leave the EU or not, but the utter tripe that passes for ‘facts’ about it just makes me instinctively pro out of spite!

Also, European Dopers - what perception do you, your friends, or your countrymen have about the EU? Or their perception of the UK’s relation with it? Is it seen as a bunch of loonies angry over nothing, and if they want out, good riddance, or is there sympathy with the anti-EU attitude? What could be the end outcome of all this?

2

I’m generally pro-EU but the £1.7 billion bill could have been handled a lot better by the EU, and to be perfectly honest I’m getting quite weary of the same few countries being expected to stump up money continuously to fund the organisation. We’re expected to pay over nearly £2 billion in just over a month. Why the absurdly short time frame? Why not spread the payment out?

Further, how exactly are these payments and adjustments being calculated? For intra-UK payments like the Barnett Formula we can point to the exact calculation made each year to understand the amount of money being paid, a basic point in transparency. Has the EU done the same? It seems strange to me that the UK is continuously asked for contributions, when Ireland—a country with a higher HDI and a higher GDP per capita than the UK—has only once in 14 years contributed to the EU’s coffers with a paltry £50 million! Why is the UK contributing so much when Ireland is contributing so little? If the payments are not based off HDI and GDP, what on Earth are they based on?

3

I can acknowledge that, and yes, it’s been poorly handled. But my perception is most Brits haven’t even acknowledged the short deadline, which is legitimately outrageous, and are simply seeing the charge as wrong simply because it’s going to Brussels.

4

I bet the UK regrets boosting the GDP with drugs and whores. But it’s only fair the UK pays more, since it’s you guys who settled us with Catherine Asthon - the highest paid (pseudo) foreign minister in the history of mankind. Somebody’s got to pay for her upkeep.

5

The entire EU has done this to harmonise how GDP is calculated.

6

I think there is a perception rightly or wrongly that certain EU countries (Most of them:p) historically have had an ambivalent view of the UK in the EU. Who are the UK’s close partners in the EU? I can’t think of any in comparison to the French and German cooperation.

7

Is that actually true though, or just a sense of isolation that eurosceptics like to exaggerate? I also get the impression the UK gets on quite well with Germany and some east European countries.

8

It’s like the YES campaign for Scottish Independence. It is a lot easier to get folk worked up for change than it is to just keep the status quo. Similarly I hope the silent majority will turn out to be firmly for staying in the EU.

It is certainly not perfect but you stay and fix the house when it needs maintenance, not flounce off to live in the shed at the end of the garden.

Sometimes though you wonder if the EU officials have any idea of how politics works as they play into the hands of Euro-skeptics all too often.

9

The Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden routinely vote the same way as the UK on most matters, so much so that the four countries could be considered a permanent voting bloc.

Barroso’s ridiculous intervention nearly drove us out of the EU single-handedly, and I can see any campaign to keep us in the EU falling into the same trap of negativity that Better Together did in Scotland. Barroso’s comments weren’t just wrong, they were offensive, especially his claim that the UK would have no influence on Europe’s Ebola response if we were to leave. For reference, the entire EU has pledged £600 million in aid money, with the UK pledging £250 million, or nearly 50% of that, along with us sending a hospital ship and deploying hundreds of troops to build clinics. Meanwhile, countries like Austria have pledged less than Ikea.

10

Hasn’t the UK always had mixed feelings about being in the EU? For example, not being part of the Euro-zone.

11

I think it was easier in the past to consider the British attitude to be one of cautious, maybe even reluctant, membership of the EU. But it seems in the past year or so to have hardened into most people favouring complete withdrawal.

12

On what do you base this “it seems” impression?

My take is that a vocal minority is perhaps more vocal - encouraged by the ramblings of that bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists otherwise known as UKIP - but that the “quiet majority” is unchanged in their view that we are better off inside the tent pissing out…

13

Granted, but the number of people expressing support and voting for UKIP has grown immensely, and their anti-EUism is their best-known (perhaps only) policy.

“it seems” that way due to the prevailing debate. There doesn’t seem to be any attempt by the pro or conditional-pro EU ‘quiet majority’ to counter their claims. Surely there must be something they can say to defend it?

14

At present there are a few principles that make this demand most unwelcome.

We have endured austerity measures for the last number of years, and we were told that this would end sometime fairly soon, but now it seems that this will last for up to 2020.

The real living standards of the population have fallen whilst everything else has gone up - we are assailed by government spin that our economy is doing well - unemployment is allegedly down and more folk have work - but that is misleading because the jobs being created are not high value ones, and many working poor are hardly any better off than by not working - mainly its about doing what it takes to remain in the workforce rather than to lose what little they have.

Our current start up generation of workers look very much like they will be worse off than their parents, significantly so.

To many folk, our government is great for Great Britain, but not so great for the people working in it.

It seems the EU has recalculated the contributions that the UK makes, and has decide we are doing so well that we need to pay them more. That really does not play well with the British public, the vast majority of whom have seen their disposable income fall.

Next, David Cameron has promised an ‘in or out’ of Euro vote. This is an attempt to head of a potential split in the centre right vote, the opinion polls are so close that it really would not take much to tilt the vote either way. Our administration faces the prospect that UKIP, a more right wing party, could siphon off enough votes away from that side of the political spectrum that it might leave the centre left with the largest voting bloc.

Thing is, the public are fed up with both the left centre politicians, and the right centre politicians and are very much in a mood to give both a good kick right up the jacksy.

When you look at the Thatcher years, one this is certain, there was a split among the centre left parties, Labour/ Social Democrats/liberals and this probably helped the centre right to win at least one term in office and perhaps two. This lesson is not lost on any part of the political divide.

So now we come to UKIP, this is more right wing than any of the current parties, they were seen as something of a joke, and not taken too seriously, but defections of centre right politicians to UKIP, and the fact that UKIP has had much greater success in various elections, from local council to European to Parliamentary and its obvious they are not the joke they once seemed.

UKIP is very much anti-Euro, its got plenty of lunatics in it but also has a message that plays very well to the little Englander bias in our national psyche. There is even quite a lot of viable truth in what they say too - and this appeals greatly.
So, David Cameron is in the position where he is trying to ensure that the vote for his own party holds up, and he is trying to do this by being more Euro-assertive than UKIP itself.

The Centre left has its own problems, the Scottish vote is not the end of it since that has changed politics for the next few years at the very least - and the Scots are largely centre left voters.

Both centre left and centre right are trying to play up each others uncomfortable truths, as you might expect - and none of them want to be seen as willing to compromise to work as part of a coalition.

There are many other little issues, such as the selection of individuals for senior Europosts, contributions to overseas aid, the problems about illegal immigration (why is it that France does nothing to deport illegals on their way to the UK when the rule is that when an illegal arrives in Eurozone the first nation of contact bears the responsibility for defending the integrity of the Eurozone)

If the Euros don’t want us, they will lose out extremely badly - both of us lose mutual markets, but they would lose our funding, without which the Euro project would be in very serious difficulty - yet the Euros seem to do as much as possible to make themselves offensive - they will not look at various reforms, their accounting is rubbish - which is why the Euro went into meltdown in the first place, its absolutely clear that the Eurozone needs to change.

If you are have nationalistic leanings, then pretty much all that has come out of Europe must be anathema to you, and this is where UKIP is cleaning up

15

The change in British attitudes is very much tied to the issue of migrant working. The numbers of migrant workers and their impact on wages, employment and public services is a legitimate topic of political discussion but one that is heavily circumscribed by EU regulations.

If a significant proportion of the electorate see this as an issue and it cannot be resolved within the confines of EU obligations then something is going to have to give.

16

I agree it’s a valid issue, but I’ve not found anything that makes plain what the facts are. I hear people accusing the EU of constraining us regarding immigration, but to what degree, and how far would that immigration policy change if we left? It just seems that this claim that we’re having trouble with immigrants and it’s down to the EU is a statement taken at face value and not closely scrutinised.

I suppose the issue of the EU is one on which there’s point and counterpoint to everything, mind you.

17

Most people have issues with the EU. Because of course the EU takes blame for everything wrong and is never credited for anything good. Nobody (no politician at least) has any interest in presenting things otherwise. And also because what the EU is doing doesn’t get much coverage. So, people are clueless about what purpose it serves, and only hear about it for negative reasons.
I think most people however would say that the UK isn’t a reliable EU partner willing to work things out and such. To be frank, I share this opinion. Between its isolationism wrt Europe, its euroskepticism and its transatlantic preference, the UK rarely seems a team member in Europe (not just wrt the EU, but other European projects like defence, immigration, sattelites and space, etc…), and often an hindrance.

I think the UK should stay in because it’s one of the main European economies, but honestly I feel good riddance.

By the way, I believe that if every EU country had an honest referendum about leaving the EU, a lot of them would in fact leave.

18

France is rarely the first nation of contact, nowadays. It’s typically Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland… There are in fact serious problems about this issue between France and Italy, for instance. Italy thinking it’s unfair that they bear the lion’s share of the problem, and France thinking that Italy turns a blind eye on immigrants moving north. In fact, they openly did that once (under Berlusconi, of course).

And regarding why they aren’t deported : because you can’t deport people like that. It’s pretty different when someone is caught at the border (you detain him and put quite summarily send him back to where he was coming from)and when he’s already there. If they have a current asylium seeker application, for instance, they can’t be deported until it ran its course. If they don’t they must be identified, tried, etc… And then, you must know where to send them back. If they don’t tell who they are and where they’re coming from (which obviously, they’ll avoid if they aren’t idiots), they can’t be deported, only sentenced to jail and then freed.
The UK isn’t the country that faces the most issues wrt illegal immigration in any case.

19

What **clairobscur **says.
Might just be my inner Frenchman talking, but I’ve always felt the UK had a “client” relationship with the EU - they seem to want what good it can bring them, but not to be arsed with all the tedious, “being team players” sacrifices and give-and-take that come with that. Stuff like this.

So, like clairobscur, my position is that on the whole it’s better (for every member-state, UK included) if they stay in, but deep down, y’know ? Fuck’em :o.

20

I would not be surprised to find that the reason the illegals, and asylum seekers are not incarcerated until their cases have been determined is because of the shortage of detention places.

They have closed half a dozen places that could be used for regular prisons, and in turn others would have been freed up space to convert other into immigrant detention centres, the problem is actually less about the physical spaces though, because you still have to staff them, and cuts of around 20%-35% in staff levels, along with changes to the rates of pay means that it is becoming more than merely inconvenient to recruit more staff.

You can reopen a mothballed facility, but not without staff.

This has saved a huge amount of money, but we are then putting many more potential illegal immigrant detainees out in police bail where they are supposed to report their movements, which of course they do not.

This is the same thing with criminal illegals who are due up for deportation - these are illegals who have committed crimes and have been convicted.It takes so long for their cases to be heard that when they have served their jail time they are put into bail hostels because we do not have the secure accommodation for them, and again they seem to disappear at an alarming rate. Around 4000 of those have apparently dropped out of sight - that’s if you can believe the various reports, which may not be all that credible given the state of our right wing biased media.

One of the issues that is in the air about the Eurozone is that they seem to have the gall to tell us how we should behave, and about how we should follow the rules, yet when you actually look at the accounting procedures and the empty accounts right across Europe its pretty clear that Southern Europe especially is great at giving out advice, but not at all keen on following it themselves.

Look at income tax around the Mediterranean economies, its simply a national pastime to evade income tax.In Italy especially getting due payment on time is best predicted by using quantum physics, where money can both exist and yet not exist at the same time.

Go around Spain, Italy, Greece and see all those new ghost towns, built on nothing more than speculation - without any sort of business strategy.

Why does France criticise us for the illegals trying to cross the border via the channel tunnels, as if we bear even the slightest responsibility - the rules are pretty clear, they are nothing to do with us, we are merely their attempted destination but they go through any nation that’s going to make it easy for them, it notice we do not seem to have lots of them trying to camp on the Belgian channel ports, or the Dutch ones or even the more obvious Spanish ports - seems to me that its the way France accommodates them that encourages them - yet the French somehow blame us?