EU to flush your money down your toilet?

[Java Jive]

Already discussed elsewhere in thread.

You are being disingenuous:

- "There is a jaw-dropping statistic in the new Balance of Payments figures. As usual, Britain ran a massive trade deficit with the rest of the EU, only partially offset by its surplus with the rest of the world. Our current account deficit with the EU in 2010 was £46.6 billion; our surplus with the rest of the world was £10.3 billion. These figures shouldn't surprise anyone: since 1973, the United Kingdom has tended to be in surplus with every continent except Europe."

That is unlikely to change whether or not we are in the EU.

- "Britain?s gross contributions increased partly because of the decline in the value of the pound against the euro."

Nor necessarily that - in fact it could be construed as an argument for joining the Euro.

- "The dramatic decline in receipts from the EU results mainly from a controversial deal struck by Tony Blair to hand back part of the annual rebate famously secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984."

That was our own unwise choice presumably made at a time when things were economically better and we felt we could afford it, you can hardly blame the EU for biting our hands off in agreement.

[Java Jive]

Nowhere does that article identify "a corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove with European big business bent on European domination at any price."

Ten years out of date, and "Both men deny any wrongdoing and no compelling evidence has been brought against them. Nonetheless, the inquiry is exposing murky ties between politicians, media bosses and regulatory officials. As a result, ordinary Poles are increasingly disgusted with, and cynical about, the post-communist establishment."

and much of the rest sounds rather like the UK in the middle of the MPs' Expenses scandal.

"Transparency International (TI) is active in Hungary and its 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index rates Hungary 50th out of 102 countries (1st being best), more favorably than most other countries in the region, but worse than Hungary?s 2009 ranking of 46th."

Can't read much more because the cr*p designer of the page won't allow me a vertical scroll bar, but 50th out of 102 is about average, so what are you complaining about?

9-10 2 Denmark, Finland 8-8.9 3 Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden 7-7.9 4 Belgium, France, Germany, UK 6-6.9 6 Austria, Eire, Estonia, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain 5-5.9 5 Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland 4-4.9 7 Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia 3-3.9 1 Greece

So the worst "corrupt bent bunch" is in fact Greece who have no communist background, and in amongst the next bunch is Italy, while of the ex-communist countries, including Germany, 6 are above world average, 3 comfortably so, and 6 just below, their combined average (by counting countries) being around 5.3, just above world average.

And note, the map is of perceived, not proven, corruption.

So the allegation that the EU is "a corrupt bent bunch of ex-commies hand in glove with European big business bent on European domination at any price" remains the unproven bigotry that it always was.

Apparently comfortably smarter than you, but then that doesn't seem to be at all difficult.

[John Rumm]

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility of a population that found our lavish public services and benefits system particularly attractive?

[John Rumm]

Although the free movement of goods was championed[1], the free movement of people was very much played down at the time.

[1] and the implied requirements of "harmonisation" of standards for goods etc also not discussed.

[Adrian]

Because, of course, people from Ireland, Scotland, the North of England, the South West haven't been heading to the South East (or wherever else's been perceived as lucrative) to seek their fortunes for FAR FAR longer than the UK's been an EU member, have they?

Turn again, Dick Whittington.

So you're suggesting that the government should make hefty cutbacks to public services and benefits?

[John Rumm]

They have, however the scale of the migration is what makes the current situation different.

We can't actually fund those which we currently provide, so it seems we have the option of generating more revenue, or reducing spending since an ever increasing debt burden is not sustainable. The revenue raising can only happen as a result of private sector wealth generation - and there are practical limits (in a developed economy) as to how fast they can scale. If they can't keep up with the spend rate on public sector costs, then you are left with only one viable option.

[John Rumm]

Lets try it in a sentence shall we?

"Tomorrow, Harry will drive his electric car to the supermarket. If the battery is not flat after that, he will be going from there to see his psychiatrist in the next street. "

[Adrian]

No, it really isn't.

10% of British people have at least one Irish grand parent.

To put that into proportion, even the Daily Wail estimates a million "Eastern Europeans" are in the UK - 10yrs after the start of the accession wave. That's an average of only about half the net migrants to the UK each year, about one quarter of the annual population growth - or about one eighth of the number of births in the country each year.

I wonder how you viewed yesterday's news that recent EU migrants have contributed more to the exchequer, per capita and relative to benefits claimed, than "native" Britons?

[John Rumm]

If we knew where they were...

That is debatable.

One of the failures of legislators is that they seem to judge their performance by the quantity of legislation they generate. It takes much bolder and unconstrained individuals to decide that the status quo is actually better than more legislation in the face of vociferous campaigns from self interest groups demanding the "governement" "do something".

[John Rumm]

When you say "received" do you mean received in the sense of "got some of our payments into the EU refunded"? Or, are you suggesting that we were nett recipients of funds from the EU?

[John Rumm]

While fine in principle, there is the difficulty of finding someone prepared to carry less that adequately productive individuals for long enough to allow that to happen.

[The Natural Philosopher]

that's when you create a new Act that essentially 'repeals' tons of pre-existing garbage that proved to be more or less completely useless.

Te problem today is that if it contravenes a EU Directive*, or worse, a Regulation**, its pretty much ultra vires***.

• a Directive is an EU decree that parliament gets to rubber stamp.

** a Regulation is an EU decree that happens without parliament even debating it. *** Ultre vires is a legal term meaning 'you didn't have the authority for that, and it is therefore null and void and never legally happened'. >

[Tim Streater]

The stupid insistence on a new press charter (instead of enforcing existing legislation) is a case in point.

[Tim Streater]

Makes you wonder whether manufacturers actually test them.

[Java Jive]

[Java Jive]

To return to facts (remember them?) ...

What are EU regulations?

Regulations are the most direct form of EU law - as soon as they are passed, they have binding legal force throughout every Member State, on a par with national laws. National governments do not have to take action themselves to implement EU regulations.

They are different from directives, which are addressed to national authorities, who must then take action to make them part of national law, and decisions, which apply in specific cases only, involving particular authorities or individuals.

Regulations are passed either jointly by the EU Council and European Parliament, and by the Commission alone.

What are EU directives?

EU directives lay down certain end results that must be achieved in every Member State. National authorities have to adapt their laws to meet these goals, but are free to decide how to do so. Directives may concern one or more Member States, or all of them.

Each directive specifies the date by which the national laws must be adapted - giving national authorities the room for manoeuvre within the deadlines necessary to take account of differing national situations.

Directives are used to br>

[Tim Streater]

The exact nature of the two /what/ ??

[John Rumm]

Yes it really is...

And the total population of the (what would become) UK then was what?

and which groups have the highest birth rates?

I must have missed that, however its still not solving the real problem though is it? When you have areas where you can't get school places, housing, access to medical care etc simply because the local population has expanded way beyond that capacity of the local infrastructure.

I personally have respect for economic migrants - it takes a certain amount of determination to uproot your entire family and move somewhere unknown in search of life offering better opportunities. This is not to say that one should dismantle boarder controls completely, or that nations such as the UK which will be viewed my many as a land of opportunity can withstand unfettered immigration. The EU ideal of free movement of population works when you have a group of member countries which can be viewed (at least on a broad scale) as largely equal in terms of availability of work, and welfare. If fails when you have member countries joining at a significantly different level of industrial / commercial development.

[John Rumm]

I am too young to remember much of the detail, but I only recall talk at the time of voting to enter/stay in the common market. No mention of the EU or similar terminology. I get the string impression that is how people at the time perceived what was on offer.

Even a decade or more later, when Mrs Thatcher highlighted that the whole purpose of the EU dream from the outset was one of political union, the deniers claimed that was not the case and that she was simply being irrational etc. At least now they seem more open to admitting that as the goal.

[Adrian]

Because, at the time, it was called the "European Economic Community", nicknamed "common market". The name change to "European Union" came later

- but the details which people seem to be objecting to (principally free movement of people) were integral from the founding in the late '50s.

The hard-of-thinking/Daily-Wail-gullible usually conflate the totally separate European Convention on Human Rights, forgetting that the UK was instrumental in creating that in the 1950s, and that the much-loathed Human Rights Act merely allows breaches of the ECHR to be prosecuted in British courts rather than having to be escalated to the European Court of Human Rights. Strangely, none of them can ever point to which articles of the convention they object to, either.