Funnily enough, the UK press often says similar things about other EU countries - that while we play by the rules, they ignore the ones that are inconvenient to them. And France has traditionally been held up as a benefitting from policies such as the C.A.P.
I suspect the resentment runs in all directions. It is very convenient for politicians of an EU country to blame some other country for spoiling things. Always plays well at home, that.
This spat about the £1.7 bn is a storm in a teacup. UKIP is just a silly protest party with a side of racism. I say that as someone who is sceptical about the EU - if you look at UKIP’s policies, if you can call them that, they have no coherent plan for how the process of leaving the EU would actually take place. They seem to think we would declare exit on Monday and be out of the EU on Tuesday.
Prediction: UKIP won’t do much in a real election, and the UK will not vote to leave the EU.
As mentioned upthread this was done everywhere to try and produce consistent figures. But I do wonder about it. Sure it’s a useful economic measure in some respects but it seems wrong to judge EU contributions based on GDP that includes the ‘black economy’. I mean surely that money isn’t taxed, so it doesn’t boost the governments bank balance – so how can they be expected to pay more based on it? And that’s leaving out the lack of transparency on the methodology used.
Of course, if the EU had any sense, this would all be a bluff. They’ll rework the figures under some pretense, lower the values to what they actually wanted in the first place and it looks like a win all round for diplomacy and pragmatism.
I am not convinced the EU have any sense. I actually tend to think the EU would much rather have the UK (and perhaps a few others) leave, which will give them a lot more freedom to pursue tighter integration. Sadly I don’t have enough understanding of the pros and cons to really know which side to pick.
Why would they be incarcerated? An asylium seeker isn’t a criminal.
And even if they aren’t asylium seekers, detention centers only apply when they first enter the territory. Basically, they’re stopped at the border and held until sent back. Once they have entered, they can’t be detained without due process. There must be a reason for their arrest, and a court appearance to jail them or deport them.
People who are waiting to cross the channel obviously aren’t at the French border. They can’t be arbitrarily detained. the camps, when they existed, weren’t detention facilities.
And as I wrote before, the UK, by virtue of its geographical position at the extreme west of Europe and of the English Channel preventing an easy entry certainly isn’t the EU country with the most problems wrt illegal immigrants. Try Italy, for instance.
Because the EU doesn’t think of itself as an intergovernmental organisation, but as a union of nations. The contributions expected of each nation are based on what the nation can pay, not on what the government can pay. Other points aside, ignoring the black economy rewards countries which allow the black economy to flourish, and penalise those which seek to regulate and tax it.
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s as simple as that. That kind of complacency almost broke up the UK in September. The British could vote for remaining in the EU, but they have to be given a reason. And like in September, where NO kept saying how crappy it would be out but gave little positive case for IN, the current dialogue in Britain over the EU is dominated by the antis while the pros are near silent. Unless this changes, we’ll leave by default.
There is also the matter that the UK is currently running a deficit: we don’t have £1.7B. There seems to be a lot of resentment at the way in which the EU raises money and spends it. Rightly or wrongly, corruption is perceived to be rife - one might note the lack of audited accounts. It would be a lot better if there were an EU-wide tax to fund its activities.
Not quite. The EU’s accounts are audited (by the Court of Auditors), and they are signed off; but the Court routinely returns a verdict that the mechanisms for ensuring the money are effectively and honestly spent are only “partially effective”.
The audited accounts issue is mostly down to Member States giving flawed reports, and is only partially down to corruption, the rest down to an utterly baffling European expenditure system. Member States are mostly responsible for detecting and correcting errors. The problem isn’t the European bureaucracy.
Which would immediately be condemned as a federalising move!
Hmm, interesting. I guess I assumed the black economy generally exists and so this move would encourage legalization and taxation. Didn’t consider it may also prompt further regulation.
Funny, in the UK we see the same thing with France. The insanity of the Strasbourg seat for the EU Parliament and the travelling circus every month, the wasteful CAP that massively subsidises inefficient French farmers and causes untold poverty in the third world, France’s inability to keep its finances in order despite signing a compact to do exactly that, the blatant state aid that the French state routinely gives to companies like Alstom, French threats to veto the Transatlantic Trade agreement unless “culture” is protected, and so on.
The free movement of labour is a basic principle of the EU. We cannot prevent Eastern European economic migrants working in the UK. The issue then gets clouded in people’s minds with illegal immigration and what some see as perverse interpretations of the Human Rights Act preventing deportation. On top of that there can be local problems when a town’s population of migrants both legal and illegal reaches levels that begin overwhelming social resources which are not funded for the pressures.
The UK is in a uniquely bad position because it’s the end destination of choice due to the English language being the widespread second language. And to a great extent these compete with unskilled and low paid workers precisely at the time when globalisation has destroyed those jobs and depressed the wages even further. On top of that the bankers have managed to force governments to pay for their actions by cutting welfare. And as a side effect property has become unaffordable so the pressure on the rental market has become extreme.
Whether our benefits system is an attractor I don’t know but it seems to me utterly ridiculous that it ends up paying Child Support for large extended families abroad.
The UK is basically dealing with an unprecedented wave of migration. Net migration was according to govt figures 243k last year. That’s 2 towns the size of the one i live in. Each year.
It’s no wonder UKIP is gathering so much support when the two main parties have shown themselves unable and unwilling to address what a lot of people see as a problem.
I fear we are all in for a shock. Neither of the Tweedledee and Tweedledum main parties will be able to form a government alone and I can certainly see UKIP coming out of the election with a few seats. The latest figures suggest maybe 30. That could make them coalition partners with the tories.
Regarding the referendum - it’ll be close. I believe that both the UK and the EU political systems need tearing down. Neither work for the interests of their electorates. If I could wave my magic UK wand I’d have a wipe the slate clean constitutional convention and start all over again.
A common complaint is that the European union has reached it’s current form through climbing a gentle ladder of creeping federalisation and cutting the rungs out from below. Certainly no-one in the UK voted for this organisation in the current form and had this been put to the UK public as a proposed end-state say…30 years ago, I’m sure a referendum would have taken us out.
But we are where we are. My personal choice would be to remain a loose alliance of countries within a free trade area, free movement of citizens but a broad taking back of powers currently given to Brussels.
My biggest gripe is that I get no say in who is in charge of Europe. I don’t get chance to vote them in and I sure as hell can’t kick them out. That doesn’t feel democratic to me.
So yes, Cameron needs to kick up a massive fuss, as do the UK governments that follow and reverse the tide of federalisation and reform the structures and functions of the E.U.
The principle of greater co-operations is a noble one, the blinkered push to a federal super-state has been a disaster and has led us to a point where we may well leave.
Maybe. But that was a booming West Germany and the Brits weren’t staying or claiming benefits. The Germans were and are extremely unhappy about Turkish migrants.
There’s an ongoing mass migration into the UK (both legal and illegal) that regardless of arguments about net benefits or losses, has not in any meaningful sense been ‘agreed to’ by the electorate.
And now a large segment of that electorate who quite rightly feel dis-empowered under the current Tweedledum and Tweedledee system think they are being offered the chance of a voice.
Regardless of facts once coming on to half the electorate see something as a ‘problem’ it’s a problem that has to be addressed. I sense the mood of the country has now gone beyond being palmed off with platitudes and promises no one in the political establishment has any intention of keeping.
Come the Referendum this will boil over. If I was a betting man I’d put money to the ‘Out’ vote. Like someone else in the thread said - Head says in but my Heart says, ‘screw this whole undemocratic euro-shit’. Liberal as I am I still beleive a national government has a natural and unconstrained right to control its own borders.
Im fairly confident any Referendum vote on British membership of the EU would result in a decision to stay in - barring some meltdown within the EU or our relationship with the EU turning significantly more sour in the meantime. We see how this all works in the Scottish referendum. Major businesses threaten to leave the UK, the price of our weekly shop is predicted to rise if we leave, fears are exaggerated; pro EU party leaders make a last minute commitment to take a tougher stance on Europe; Angela Merkel makes a vague speech promising greater flexibility for member states within the EU. All is predicted in the stars, all will come to pass.
The UK isn’t the end destination of choice. Other European countries receive more illegal (and legal) immigrants. It’s the end destination of choice for immigrants from some countries who already have a large community living in the UK. A Pakistanese is likely to try to enter the UK. A Morrocan not so much.
Another factor is UK (relative, by comparison with other European countries) laxism wrt illegal immigrants. They’re apparently less likely to be deported once in the UK than from, say, France or Germany because the UK doesn’t have much of an anti-immigration policy. Once you’re there you’re good and unlikely to be ever found out and deported (or so immigrants believe).
If this thread is representative, I believe british people might be very misleaded about this immigration issue.
Again a common complaint, not only in the UK. When in fact people elect the EU parliament, and elect they own government (represented at the EU council) and the EU commission is an emanation of both democratically elected bodies. It’s perfectly democratic. If you elect a left-wing EU parliament, you won’t get a right-wing commission (and the parliament has already issued votes of no confidence).
Before the last EU parliament elections, it was known that the results would be close and that who would head the commission would depends on which side would get more seats in the parliament. Was this widely reported? Nope…just discussed on page 10 of some “elitists” newspapers.
The issue isn’t that it’s not democratic, it’s that EU citizens couldn’t care less about this democratic process, and aren’t the the slightest bit informed about the consequences of their choices at the European level. They just vote according to internal politics, when they even bother to vote.