Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Akka]

TThe whole point about Britain’s renegotiation is not to get more special treatment, as Akka seems to suggest.

UK in EU has always been about getting special treatment and only considering the EU as a market from the very start, and being a general PITA and disruptive.
In fact, the USA wanted them in the EU precisely because of that.

So yeah, it's just about special treatment. And sadly they get it (and the most stupid one on top of that, not regulating the City is probably the last thing to ever give up about, and I'm pretty sure the next time people in the UK are shafter by banks the politicians will manage to spin it to blame the EU about it...), rather than getting the middle finger and being said "everyone should be treated the same, accept it or leave".

 

[gay_Aleks]

Oh, my. Now, I don't like the UK like any good, self-respecting person, but to imply that the UK's membership within the EU is an US conspiracy to ruin the EU is...how should I say it...outlandish?

 

[Akka]

Oh, my. Now, I don't like the UK like any good, self-respecting person, but to imply that the UK's membership within the EU is an US conspiracy to ruin the EU is...how should I say it...outlandish?

I'd like to see the UK leaving the EU. Does that mean I'm at the head of a conspiracy pushing the UK out ?

Don't play dumb and twist what I'm saying. The USA were happy to help push the UK in when the occasion happened, but it doesn't mean they created a conspiracy about it or were even a noticeable influence.

 

[sherbz]

UK in EU has always been about getting special treatment and only considering the EU as a market from the very start, and being a general PITA and disruptive.
In fact, the USA wanted them in the EU precisely because of that.

So yeah, it's just about special treatment. And sadly they get it (and the most stupid one on top of that, not regulating the City is probably the last thing to ever give up about, and I'm pretty sure the next time people in the UK are shafter by banks the politicians will manage to spin it to blame the EU about it...), rather than getting the middle finger and being said "everyone should be treated the same, accept it or leave".

I reject this idea of "special treatment". The fact is that when Europe was set up it was with a view to benefit the 2 major players - the French and the Germans. The EU (or EC - whatever it was called back then) offered a platform for german manufacturers to export their goods without any tariffs. And over time, it allowed the French a subsidy system for their farming industry (the CAP). So perpetually, the French have been getting "special treatment" because the very way the EU was set up was in their favor. How is it fair that we endlessly subsidise their inefficient and over producing farming industry when it contributes towards less than 2% of European GDP and swallows up approx 40% of the ENTIRE EU budget? Nearly all British complaints that have led to this "special treatment" you talk of stem from this immutable point. British rebate is "special treatment"? No - it is correcting a system that does not actually help the UK economy at all and recognises that we contribute far more than we actually receive back. Camerons recent concessions over an option out of ever closer union, is that "special treatment". No - it is trying to get to a position whereby countries outside of the euro are not asked to prop up a currency they didnt adopt, and not be subject to rules which make sense for euro currencies, but not for those with national currencies.

Saying the UK gets special treatment doesnt wash. The status quo results in us getting a bad deal (compared to others), so these concessions won over the years are merely correcting or recognising that fact.

 

[AdrienIer]

Sherbs your argument would hold if Germany and France weren't the biggest contributors of the EU, with a net loss far greater than the UK. Unfortunately for you they are, so your argument is not based on any reality.
France doesn't get special treatment, because what we get in agricultural subsidies we give back 10 times over in other parts of the EU budget.

 

[Arakhor]

The CAP does seem rather odd/wasteful to the uninitiated though (which is nearly everyone).

I would also contend that the UK does get special treatment, in as much as we keep insisting that we should get a Norway-style deal, whilst trying to keep all the benefits of remaining in the EU.

 

[AdrienIer]

Ok so from what I can find in 30mn on the internet, the CAP budget made up 71% of the EU budget in 1984. The 40% it is today means it has shrunk compared to the rest of the EU budget. So the EU is evolving from a Franco-German deal to favor both of them to a real union that doesn't favor anyone particularly.
The second thing I could find is that while France is indeed the first receiver of the CAP, it's not just because the game is rigged in our favor. It's because we've got the most farm land in the EU. The percentage of the CAP we get is pretty much equal to the percentage of farm land we have in Europe.
So in less than a half hour of research I've found that not only are English people whining over nothing but they're also basing their reasoning on completely false premises.

 

[really]

France and the UK make an almost identical net contribution as far as I know.

Natural resources incl CAP spending is 43% of 1% of European income.

Erasmus uses about 1% of the 1%. British students are much less likely to take part in that program - should a rebate be negotiated there?

 

[sherbz]

Ok so from what I can find in 30mn on the internet, the CAP budget made up 71% of the EU budget in 1984. The 40% it is today means it has shrunk compared to the rest of the EU budget. So the EU is evolving from a Franco-German deal to favor both of them to a real union that doesn't favor anyone particularly.
The second thing I could find is that while France is indeed the first receiver of the CAP, it's not just because the game is rigged in our favor. It's because we've got the most farm land in the EU. The percentage of the CAP we get is pretty much equal to the percentage of farm land we have in Europe.
So in less than a half hour of research I've found that not only are English people whining over nothing but they're also basing their reasoning on completely false premises.

Spending 40% of your budget on agriculture is ludicrous. Whichever government decides that's a good idea is totally crackers. That's almost as stupid as spending 40% on defence. And whilst France might have more land, I think you will find we produce a similar amount of food to France, even though our industry is half the size of yours. Most of our CAP handouts go to prince Charles. How dumb is that? EU tax payers money subsidises the business activities of our royal family.

 

[AdrienIer]

IDK, there are 10 times more cows in France than in the UK for example. I'm struggling to find the total production of food in specific countries but I suspect we produce more.

Edit : Here you go Britain doesn't produce as much as France in pretty much everything (only in chicken meat).Britain vs France

Edit edit : And the CAP budget is only 56 billions, including 14 billions for rural development that is not directly linked to producing food (numbers from 2008). Compare that to the sum of the budgets of all the EU nations you'll find that it's not that impressive for an agriculture budget. So not ludicrous at all.

Also, how Britain chooses to spend its EU money is none of our business. If you want to give it to Charles you can. You're a sovereign state you know

 

[really]

Why are you comparing the budget of the EU to the budget of a national government? They are very different entities with different competences.

 

[AdrienIer]

That's the point. The EU isn't a state. So it's not important that 40% of its budget goes into agriculture. The overall agriculture budget on Europe (as in the sum of every country and the EU) is very reasonable

 

[sherbz]

That money could be spent on developing infrastructure, investing in technology, improving broadband services, or space exploration. But no. Let's piss it all up the wall on farmers, who make up less that 1% of the European workforce.

And no we cannot decide who to give the CAP money to. There are rules, and the rules say if you do this, then you get that.

 

[AdrienIer]

They could. But those subsidies would have to come from somewhere else (naturally from the states themselves), so you'd just be transferring back the subsidies from EU level to national level.
The reasoning is also that the EU wants to keep feeding itself, and not rely on imports to eat. So we want our agriculture to stay alive. As much as I'd like space exploration I understand why we put our priorities on the CAP.

 

[HAND]

The bottom line for UK voters is whether they want to live in a nation state democracy in future or be part of a larger superstate (which is what the EU is becoming) in future.

There are numerous sources around that imply the effect of leaving the EU on British business would be negligible.. in fact businesses (exporters) are benefiting from the fall in the pound as we speak.
Brexit might be great for the UK and EU who can carry on with their federal state building unhindered by the British.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So, UK rabid nationalists want brexit, and EU rabid federalists want brexit too. Two opposed sides wanting the same outcome. Seen before?

 

[HAND]

So, UK rabid nationalists want brexit, and EU rabid federalists want brexit too. Two opposed sides wanting the same outcome. Seen before?

It's called a "Win-Win" scenario..

 

[gay_Aleks]

So, UK rabid nationalists want brexit, and EU rabid federalists want brexit too. Two opposed sides wanting the same outcome. Seen before?

In the demented dreams of both? I'm sure that neither the "UK rabid nationalists" and the "EU rabid federalists" actually represent enough people to actually matter.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It's called a "Win-Win" scenario..

Subjectively maybe. It is yet to see if brexit would benefit somebody in practice.

 

[sherbz]

They could. But those subsidies would have to come from somewhere else (naturally from the states themselves), so you'd just be transferring back the subsidies from EU level to national level.
The reasoning is also that the EU wants to keep feeding itself, and not rely on imports to eat. So we want our agriculture to stay alive. As much as I'd like space exploration I understand why we put our priorities on the CAP.

This makes no sense to me. Subsidies are not supposed to exist indefinitely. That's a sign of failed economic policy. And basically sums up what's wrong with Europe. Protectionism doesn't work. And we would be perfectly able to feed ourselves with a shrunken market in agriculture. Not being able to import food from Eastern Europe and Africa, instead being forced to pay for higher priced goods from domestic markets, makes food more expensive for everyone. You are basically saying it's fine for EU tax payers to subsidise one of your industries. Would you say the same if it was British industry? Our steel industry is suffering at the moment. How's about some eu cash to help them out?