Leaving the EU - Sorry were off?

[Four Litre]

£300 each please!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8417255/3...

We all know that we were signed up for this without our approval or opinion. What are the implications if we (Team GB) were to say "F&&k You, were off", what would happen? Why cant it happen? and what are the implications?

In laymans terms please...obvioulsy we may say were leaving in a more conservative way!!

Shouldnt we be rioting on the streets until we left? whats in it for us apart from paying a load of to$$ers in Brussells a mahoosive wage?

[Chris Type R]

TBH, that's less than I thought I was paying.

[Kermit power]

Four Litre said:

We all know that we were signed up for this without our approval or opinion.

Do we? You don't live in a democracy with regular elections then? One where you get to vote for the people whose opinions most closely match yours?

I haven't got the time to trawl back through past threads on this subject, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people in this country couldn't give a toss one way or the other about EU membership. Even UKIP members polled didn't rate it as one of their most important issues!

If people really loathe the EU that much, wouldn't people be voting for UKIP? Look at their performance in the 2010 General Election. Their best performance in any seat was third place, and even in Buckingham where none of the main political parties stood that clown Farage managed to get himself beaten into third place by John Stevens, co-founder of the Pro Euro Conservative Party, of all things!

Admittedly, UKIP is a complete farce, so if you're that incensed about our membership of the EU and the fact that none of the credible political parties are willing to oppose it, why don't you start one of your own?

[don4l]

Chris Type R said:

TBH, that's less than I thought I was paying.

That figure is just Britain's contribution to the EU running costs. It doesn't include all of the silly "compliance" costs, which are much higher.

So the true cost is probably at least three times the quoted figure. As the EU's daft rules on CO2 emissions kick in then we will need another £650 per taxpayer per annum.


When we joined the EEC there were real economic benefits to our membership. Free Trade meant that we could operate cheaply in a large market. These days it is as easy to trade with Taiwan as it is with with France.

My company trades both inside and outside the EU. We get no benefits from membership.

Don
--

[V88Dicky]

don4l said:

That figure is just Britain's contribution to the EU running costs. It doesn't include all of the silly "compliance" costs, which are much higher.

So the true cost is probably at least three times the quoted figure. As the EU's daft rules on CO2 emissions kick in then we will need another £650 per taxpayer per annum.


When we joined the EEC there were real economic benefits to our membership. Free Trade meant that we could operate cheaply in a large market. These days it is as easy to trade with Taiwan as it is with with France.

My company trades both inside and outside the EU. We get no benefits from membership.

Don
--

[Caulkhead]

We should just stop paying but insist we have paid and demand they get their accounts audited to show whether we have paid or not. It will be a cold day in hell before the EU allows its accounts to be audited so it's win-win for us.

[Brighton Derly]

Kermit power said:

Do we? You don't live in a democracy with regular elections then? One where you get to vote for the people whose opinions most closely match yours?

"I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account" - Raymond Barre, former Vice President of the European Commission.

That is the sort of person that we are dealing with here. None of them have been democratically elected.

"European government is a clear expression I still use, you need time, but step by step, as in the Austrian case, the European Commission takes a political decision and behaves like a growing government. " - Romano Prodi, European Commission President, The Independent, 4th February 2000

Edited by Brighton Derly on Thursday 31st March 11:10

[Kermit power]

Brighton Derly said:

"I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account" - Raymond Barre, former Vice President of the European Commission.

That is the sort of person that we are dealing with here. None of them have been democratically elected.

They may not have been directly elected to their posts, but they have been appointed to them by democratically elected governments. If you don't like your government participating in this, then you have every right and regular opportunity to vote for a party who won't participate in it.

Strangely, that doesn't happen. Lots of people moan about EU membership, yet when it comes to a General Election, the political party which has built it's very being on withdrawal from the EU gets can't even retain their deposits.

Either it's a non-issue for the vast majority of the population, or there's loads of people with a burning desire to see its demise who aren't willing to vote for UKIP or start their own party.

[Kermit power]

don4l said:

Chris Type R said:

TBH, that's less than I thought I was paying.

That figure is just Britain's contribution to the EU running costs. It doesn't include all of the silly "compliance" costs, which are much higher.

So the true cost is probably at least three times the quoted figure. As the EU's daft rules on CO2 emissions kick in then we will need another £650 per taxpayer per annum.

Given this country's idiotic habit of electing a Labour government hell-bent on increasing the size of government every decade or two, can you honestly say that you don't believe we would've had just as much legislation introduced over the years if we'd not been a part of the EU?

Granted, it may have been different legislation, but I really can't imagine that there would've been any less of it.

[VxDuncan]

I believe the majority of people are anti EU, but this is issue #4 or #5 for them. Far more people would have voted UKIP during the general election for instance, were it not for the urgent need to remove the labour party from power...

[Kermit power]

VxDuncan said:

I believe the majority of people are anti EU, but this is issue #4 or #5 for them. Far more people would have voted UKIP during the general election for instance, were it not for the urgent need to remove the labour party from power...

It's something like issue 4 or 5 for actual UKIP voters. From what I can remember, it doesn't even make it into the top 10 for the general electorate.

[don4l]

Kermit power said:

Given this country's idiotic habit of electing a Labour government hell-bent on increasing the size of government every decade or two, can you honestly say that you don't believe we would've had just as much legislation introduced over the years if we'd not been a part of the EU?

Granted, it may have been different legislation, but I really can't imagine that there would've been any less of it.

The number of new laws that any Parliamentry Session is restricted by the time available.
New laws take time to be scrutinised in both houses of parliament. European Directives get far less scrutiny, and so they can be brought into law in much less time. Therefore, we get more new laws. Furthermore, as these new laws have not been scrutinised properly, they are often unnecessary and burdensome.

Take the WEEE legistlation, for example. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topi...

Environment Agency Website said:

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) was introduced into UK law in January 2007 by the Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment Regulations 2006.

The WEEE Directive aims to reduce the amount of electrical and electronic equipment being produced and to encourage everyone to reuse, recycle and recover it.

The WEEE Directive also aims to improve the environmental performance of businesses that manufacture, supply, use, recycle and recover electrical and electronic equipment.

This all sounds very laudable, but what does it mean in practise?

My Company had to pay the Environment Agency a Fee to register. We also have to pay a third party contractor an annual fee of £1000.00. This contractor's job is to safely dispose of any electrical waste that our customers might return to us. So far, so good, you might think.

The problem is that in the last 10 years no customer has ever sent anything back for disposal. You might ask why we have to pay a grand a year when the contractor doesn't actually provide any service to us. Well, the contractor has very expensive disposal facilities (incinerators etc) which he had to build and has to maintain. As so little stuff is being sent to them, they have to rely on the compulsory annual registration fees.

So, in return for doing absolutely nothing, we have to pay annual fees to a contractor (who does nothing), we have to maintain our Department of the Environment registration, we have to furnish WEEE certificates to anybody who asks (and believe me, people do ask). The DoE employs staff to check and maintain registrations.

All of this is so utterly futile that I don't believe that the Labour Government could have come up with it.


If this was the only pointless Directive to come from Europe then the problem wouldn't be too bad. However there is reams of the stuff - and it all serves to stifle industry and make us less competitive.

So, even if Europe applied import duties to UK products, I still feel that the reduction in our costs would outweigh the costs of the duties. In other words, we would probably increase our sales to Europe if we left the EU.

Don
--