Europe again. Unaccountable and undemocratic. This sums it up.

[Buzzer]

If we left the EU but stayed in the EEA what would be the immediate benefit? Farage et al are complaining about overcrowding right here and now. Winning a referendum to leave the EU could open the door to a further one to leave the EEA. If it didn't I'd question the point of spending vast sums on a referendum during times of austerity when your average Joe isn't going to understand the benefits,.

Net cost of EU membership is £33 million a day*. https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_membership_gross_net_contribution-30887

Cost of last referendum in 2011 was £75 million http://www.electoralcommission.org....nning-a-uk-wide-poll-published-for-first-time


*and this will undoubtedly increase - and increase significantly as the UK economy grows to be the largest in Europe (projected to be within the next 25 years) with EU gross contributions are based on GDP and the money we get back reduces as those struggling EU countries needs get bigger and bigger.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Scaremongering of the very worst kind. There's no way on Earth that the EU would not allow it. It would cause chaos in the short to medium term as millions of EU citizens in the UK would therefore not be eligible to live/work and UK citizens ineligible to live/work in EU countries. It would cause utter chaos in housing, welfare and employment all across Europe. Do you think Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal want back all those people to sign on the dole in their country? You think that businesses would allow the EU to prevent trade with the second largest economy in Europe because of a decision driven by spite?

I can only guess, so can you. Current cases suggest you're wrong though. I think we need the government to tell us exactly what they plan to do and how it will be. Otherwise we can't make an informed decision.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Net cost of EU membership is £33 million a day*. https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_membership_gross_net_contribution-30887

Cost of last referendum in 2011 was £75 million http://www.electoralcommission.org....nning-a-uk-wide-poll-published-for-first-time


*and this will undoubtedly increase - and increase significantly as the UK economy grows to be the largest in Europe (projected to be within the next 25 years) with EU gross contributions are based on GDP and the money we get back reduces as those struggling EU countries needs get bigger and bigger.

Interesting figures. My industry reckons it benefits by 30 billion in trade turn over from the EU. Where does this fit in your graphs?

 

[Buzzer]

I can only guess, so can you. Current cases suggest you're wrong though. I think we need the government to tell us exactly what they plan to do and how it will be. Otherwise we can't make an informed decision.

Which current cases? No-one's left the EU yet.

Interesting figures. My industry reckons it benefits by 30 billion in trade turn over from the EU. Where does this fit in your graphs?

And this £30 billion is all attributable to Britain's EU membership, would not exist without EU membership and will disappear overnight if we leave?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Net cost of EU membership is £33 million a day*. https://fullfact.org/economy/cost_eu_membership_gross_net_contribution-30887

Cost of last referendum in 2011 was £75 million http://www.electoralcommission.org....nning-a-uk-wide-poll-published-for-first-time


*and this will undoubtedly increase - and increase significantly as the UK economy grows to be the largest in Europe (projected to be within the next 25 years) with EU gross contributions are based on GDP and the money we get back reduces as those struggling EU countries needs get bigger and bigger.

And that addresses part of my question but not all.

Firstly you're not comparing apples and apples. AV was never really going to be taken seriously (or even understood) by the British Public and was as low key a referendum as it was possible to have. I would expect that six years later and with a far more emotive subject the cost would be significantly higher, though obviously nowhere near £33 million a day.

However, that's not what we're "saving". To know that you would have to be able to accurately project the change in GDP if we just left the EU and if we left the EU and EEA and factor that in to your calculation on our saved "Membership Fee" I'm not sure anyone is able to do that accurately.

But you left the question of staying in the EEA unanswered unless it was implicit. Are you saying the benefit is that we will immediately save £33 million pounds a day?

 

[Husty]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Which current cases? No-one's left the EU yet.



And this £30 billion is all attributable to Britain's EU membership, would not exist without EU membership and will disappear overnight if we leave?

1) Switzerland, Norway. I know they've not left but it's the closet scenario you can get.
2) vastly diminished apparently. It's not just the trade issue, but specific legislation in place to deliberately stream-line a previous ball-ache. There's an EU harmonisation, which you can't join without being tied to many other EU laws. And to try and join the main harmonisation and sign up to the various sub-laws separately will be crazily time consuming and detrimental to the industry.

 

[cunning fergus]

I have never understood why it is that there is a blindness when talking about the UK being democratic and Europe not.

The president of the EU is elected by MEPs.
The MEPs are elected by the people.

The leader of the conservative party is elected by MPs and peers.
The MPs are elected by the people.
The peers are not.

Which is more democratic?

Firstly, what President of the EU are you talking about?

You know there are 3, technically 4 with the revolving country driven presidency?

The EU Parliament President, who I suspect you refer to has no real power, the Parliament only approves/amends law from the Commission, it does not make it and has no power to do so. This institution is like an elected version of the Lords.

The EU Council President is crowned by the other EU heads of state who are the council. This institution has a democratic legitimacy based on the heads of state being elected nationally, however their nomination of an ex-EU head of state for this position is at best in democratic terms a politburo.

The EU Commission President is again appointed by the Council and the EU Parliament has a veto its hardly an election. The Commission is the law making arm of the EU and where all the power is as they can implement laws which can bypass nationally elected Governments (see EU Regulation) and the EU Parliament.

Whether you agree or not is neither here or there, at the end of the day I can vote out the British PM which is the most powerful post in the UK…………………yet I cannot vote for or against the 3 most powerful posts in the EU.

 

[Buzzer]

And that addresses part of my question but not all.

Firstly you're not comparing apples and apples. AV was never really going to be taken seriously (or even understood) by the British Public and was as low key a referendum as it was possible to have. I would expect that six years later and with a far more emotive subject the cost would be significantly higher, though obviously nowhere near £33 million a day.

However, that's not what we're "saving". To know that you would have to be able to accurately project the change in GDP if we just left the EU and if we left the EU and EEA and factor that in to your calculation on our saved "Membership Fee" I'm not sure anyone is able to do that accurately.

But you left the question of staying in the EEA unanswered unless it was implicit. Are you saying the benefit is that we will immediately save £33 million pounds a day?

Let's err on the side of caution and double the cost to £150m for the referendum and we would still not be near a week's net EU contributions. Actually, I've just done a back of the envelope calculation:

The Scottish referendum cost £13.3M, highly emotive referendum too so fits your criteria. There are 64.1m people in the UK and 5.295m people in Scotland so extrapolate the cost and you arrive at £161m just over double the last one and £70m less than a week's EU contributions.

Cost of EEA membership (splattered with the obvious caveats not least that I can only find figures based on gross contributions and not net)

Contributions to EEA membership is shared out, as with the EU contributions, on a ratio based on GDP. Norway being the biggest country pays by far the biggest contribution but the types of grants and funding they make aren't directly comparable but assuming we join the EEA we would overtake Norway as the largest country by some margin. Let's assume that for all intents and purposes we take over the entire funding. I can't find figures to hand for the cost per year but the EEA grant total paid from 1994-2014 was 3.27bn Euros. That's a sum total for 11 years worth of membership or 300m a year. There's also something called a Norway Grant that was a 5 year programme specifically for emerging EU countries that totalled 1.79bn Euros or 360m a year.

By far the most significant figure comes from this: Norway provided to various EU agencies and programmes a total of 296m Euros in 2013. I believe this figure is based on GDP so the UK contribution would have been 7.86 billion euros. Admittedly, this is all back of a fag packet calculations but I reckon worst case scenario with absolutely no rebates, grants, awards, refunds or any suchlike back to us and us funding the entire EEA (all highly unlikely scenarios) would be a cost to the UK of 8.5 bn Euros a year against a current cost of 12bn a year being in the EU. A saving of 3.5 bn Euros a year, every year and all of a sudden that cost of a referendum looks like a sound investment.

 

[jgmcdee]

At no point does the president of the EU get elected by the electorate - he / she gets short listed by deals done behind closed doors and then elected by the MEPs.

"deals done behind closed doors" sounds very cloak-and-dagger, when in fact it's just the political process and you could say the same for pretty much any political appointment.

Try voting out the EU president - oh silly me you can't because you never get to vote for him.

Assuming you're talking about the EC president.: no, you can't vote him out because the office has a 5-year term. But he can be removed by the (elected) MEPs.

Now move to David Cameron's constituency and you have the chance to unseat him next general election.

Are you seriously suggesting this as a realistic expression of democracy with some likelihood of success?

 

[Buzzer]

1) Switzerland, Norway. I know they've not left but it's the closet scenario you can get. .

In which case your scenario is a million miles off and I'm not sure what point you're making. I said that the EU would not stop the UK from joining the EEA, you said that there are current cases that suggest otherwise and these being Switzerland and Norway.....but...but...neither country have ever been in the EU, they're both happily in the EEA and I can find nothing to suggest that either the two countries nor the EU are unhappy with this situation.

 

[cunning fergus]

No one elected the UK's head of state either. She inherited it.

True, but then the UK's Head of State has no power to create or impose law, whereas the President of the EU Commission through the Lisbon Treaty has the power to impose law on member states without getting the EU Parliament or member state's parliaments to approve.

There was a thread on here recently about road deaths, and I highlighted that the e-call regulation which will not go through the UK Parliament would mean all cars sold in the EU (and UK) would have to have a GPS tracking device fitted.

No UK political party had this in their manifestos, no UK political party has suggested this is a item that he public should be consulted on, nothing............but its happened. As of 2015 we can all be tracked as we drive.

Law created and imposed by the EU Commission..............completely unaccountable to the general electorate in the UK or elsewhere in the EU.

Be careful what you wish for, I would take Brenda over Juncker all day long.

 

[cunning fergus]

"deals done behind closed doors" sounds very cloak-and-dagger, when in fact it's just the political process and you could say the same for pretty much any political appointment.



Assuming you're talking about the EC president.: no, you can't vote him out because the office has a 5-year term. But he can be removed by the (elected) MEPs.



Are you seriously suggesting this as a realistic expression of democracy with some likelihood of success?

Regarding your point about Cameron's constituency and democracy, you may want to cast your mind back to May and the fate of those Labour MP's in their rock solid Scottish seats................5-10 years ago I bet they would have been as indignant as you.

 

[Chicken Run]

Quite, hence I wrote "Not necessarily leave". I was putting my take onto his thoughts.

But I have an EU passport. And you want to strip me and Plooks of our identity, literally. I don't care who I get the passport from but I prefer an EU passport thanks.

What is an EU passport and what does it look like? Genuine question?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Let's err on the side of caution and double the cost to £150m for the referendum and we would still not be near a week's net EU contributions. Actually, I've just done a back of the envelope calculation:

The Scottish referendum cost £13.3M, highly emotive referendum too so fits your criteria. There are 64.1m people in the UK and 5.295m people in Scotland so extrapolate the cost and you arrive at £161m just over double the last one and £70m less than a week's EU contributions.

Cost of EEA membership (splattered with the obvious caveats not least that I can only find figures based on gross contributions and not net)

Contributions to EEA membership is shared out, as with the EU contributions, on a ratio based on GDP. Norway being the biggest country pays by far the biggest contribution but the types of grants and funding they make aren't directly comparable but assuming we join the EEA we would overtake Norway as the largest country by some margin. Let's assume that for all intents and purposes we take over the entire funding. I can't find figures to hand for the cost per year but the EEA grant total paid from 1994-2014 was 3.27bn Euros. That's a sum total for 11 years worth of membership or 300m a year. There's also something called a Norway Grant that was a 5 year programme specifically for emerging EU countries that totalled 1.79bn Euros or 360m a year.

By far the most significant figure comes from this: Norway provided to various EU agencies and programmes a total of 296m Euros in 2013. I believe this figure is based on GDP so the UK contribution would have been 7.86 billion euros. Admittedly, this is all back of a fag packet calculations but I reckon worst case scenario with absolutely no rebates, grants, awards, refunds or any suchlike back to us would be a cost to the UK of 8.5 bn Euros a year against a current cost of 12bn a year being in the EU. A saving of 3.5 bn Euros a year, every year and all of a sudden that cost of a referendum looks like a sound investment.

I really wouldn't expect you (or anyone else on NSC) to come up with something accurate in that short space of time on a football forum but my point wasn't really that a referendum would cost more than our EU Membership. It was that no one can quantify what will happen to GDP accurately in the event of us leaving. I know this link won't be your thing because it's to the Grauniad but it cites various studies that put the position at anything between a fall of 9.5% of GDP to being better off by 1.5% of GDP by 2030.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-britain-left-eu-european-union-referendum-uk

The CBI themselves calculaled in 2013 each household is better off by £3000 by us being in the EU But the conclusion - even in that left wing pinko's rag - is that no one really knows.

 

[Guinness Boy]

True, but then the UK's Head of State has no power to create or impose law, whereas the President of the EU Commission through the Lisbon Treaty has the power to impose law on member states without getting the EU Parliament or member state's parliaments to approve.

There was a thread on here recently about road deaths, and I highlighted that the e-call regulation which will not go through the UK Parliament would mean all cars sold in the EU (and UK) would have to have a GPS tracking device fitted.

No UK political party had this in their manifestos, no UK political party has suggested this is a item that he public should be consulted on, nothing............but its happened. As of 2015 we can all be tracked as we drive.

Law created and imposed by the EU Commission..............completely unaccountable to the general electorate in the UK or elsewhere in the EU.

Be careful what you wish for, I would take Brenda over Juncker all day long.

Eleven government defeats in the last session by the unelected House of Lords. I'll leave you to tab through the remaining years.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/house-of-lords/lords-defeats

 

[Questions]

H

The Germans have yearned for centuries to do the same and have tried twice, militarily, to expand. Twice, our greatest ally ( America ) have helped us to defeat this powerful and dangerous country. At the end of the Second World War, when the Third Reich lay in ruins, the Germans vowed to regroup and dominate again, but this time, economically



.

(Don't forget football........... They want world domination in that as well, the swines)


I'm definetly in the European camp, so much so that I am only taking 30 minutes out from my attempt at breaking the Aperol Spritzer drinking record here in scrounging Italy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Assuming you're talking about the EC president.: no, you can't vote him out because the office has a 5-year term. But he can be removed by the (elected) MEPs.

I used the title you used. Regardless, see [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION]'s posts for a better description of the non-democratic structure of the EU.

 

[Simster]

I used the title you used. Regardless, see [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION]'s posts for a better description of the non-democratic structure of the EU.

No less democratic than the UK though, is it? So what is your point?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No less democratic than the UK though, is it? So what is your point?

I don't disagree that parts of our structure are not very democratic - the House of Lords being the main part. BUT, try and influence EU policy as voters ..... you can't. Try to influence UK policy as voters .... we can, and have - the Scots are a perfect example of how they have now changed the path their country is taking. Labour now support the EU referendum - why ? - because of the defeat at the ballot box by voters.