schoolboy99
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
1. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.
2. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.
3. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.
4. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.
5. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.
6. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.
8. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again

(Yes I copied and pasted, it would have took to long to write them. )

Also, im not trying to start an argument so please no insulting and respect others opinions.
2
reply
Jacob-C
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Yes, we should be out.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by schoolboy99)
1. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion. Source?

2. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills. Source?

3. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks. Source?
See above.

(Original post by schoolboy99)
4. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.
Actually they have: http://www.parliament.uk/business/pu...es-from-europe. The figure has a fairly large range, mind you, but it is less than 84%. Even if we do take the 84% figure, why should anyone care? Surely the legislation itself is more important than the percentage of it which comes from the EU?

(Original post by schoolboy99)
5. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.
True, but the third world (I assume you're referring to poorer countries) has less wealth than the EU and all associated free trade agreements. Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...ade_agreements.

(Original post by schoolboy99)
6. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.
So.....? (I'm unsure what you're trying to make from this)

(Original post by schoolboy99)
8. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again.
Deregulate what, exactly? May you clarify the last part?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Yeah, I'd also like to hear exactly why deregulation is always an automatic good; regulations are there for protection against the abuses of authorities and corporations looking for a quiet life and a quick buck. I'd rather not deregulate if it strips me of my protections from abuse.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Even if your figures are correct (which I highly doubt) I think it would still be worth it.
0
reply
Tamora
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by gladders)
Yeah, I'd also like to hear exactly why deregulation is always an automatic good; regulations are there for protection against the abuses of authorities and corporations looking for a quiet life and a quick buck. I'd rather not deregulate if it strips me of my protections from abuse.
Let's get real. Even the Commission says "Time-consuming, resource-draining procedures – also known as red tape – are a foe of any business" and has pledged to cut it.

No one wants to be abused but we all want the economy to prosper. Red tape is like a lead weight for businesses.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Tamora)
Let's get real. Even the Commission says "Time-consuming, resource-draining procedures – also known as red tape – are a foe of any business" and has pledged to cut it.

No one wants to be abused but we all want the economy to prosper. Red tape is like a lead weight for businesses.
Granted, but not all regulation is worthless, is it? I mean, the regulation to prevent flour being replaced with plaster of paris may prevent businesses making money but it stops me falling ill.

And some regulation can help enhance business - the Single Market's purpose is to ensure a clear, level playing field rather than an uneven one.

And of course the Commission is going to talk about deregulation. As much as possible it will, I hope, reduce regulation to an optimum level between safety and good for business. But then the UK Government says the same, and I don't see you saying that the UK's existence must therefore be bad for business.
0
reply
Tamora
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by gladders)
Granted, but not all regulation is worthless, is it? I mean, the regulation to prevent flour being replaced with plaster of paris may prevent businesses making money but it stops me falling ill.

And some regulation can help enhance business - the Single Market's purpose is to ensure a clear, level playing field rather than an uneven one.

And of course the Commission is going to talk about deregulation. As much as possible it will, I hope, reduce regulation to an optimum level between safety and good for business. But then the UK Government says the same, and I don't see you saying that the UK's existence must therefore be bad for business.
Of course not all regulation is worthless and the Single Market is a customs union and it does not enhance business ... free trade does that.

And what a curious argument to make ... of course I'm not saying the UK's existence is bad for business. UK governments on the other hand appear to put their own and big business concerns above SMEs. It is SMEs which form the backbone of the UK economy. David Cameron is one of a long line of UK politicians who have stamped their feet and shaken their puny fists but red tape grows and grows in spite of the talk from both government and Commission. For me that means that both past and present UK governments and the Commission are worthless.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Tamora)
Of course not all regulation is worthless and the Single Market is a customs union and it does not enhance business ... free trade does that.
I beg to differ. The Single Market is not simply a customs union; it is a single market. That means that it reduces or eliminates the barriers to business that nation states can put up. For example, banning or heavily taxing a particular imported product on the basis of public health or standards but actually in order to protect an industry or some other local preference. Such practices are considerably difficult to do in the EU, as it's bad for business.

And what a curious argument to make ... of course I'm not saying the UK's existence is bad for business. UK governments on the other hand appear to put their own and big business concerns above SMEs. It is SMEs which form the backbone of the UK economy. David Cameron is one of a long line of UK politicians who have stamped their feet and shaken their puny fists but red tape grows and grows in spite of the talk from both government and Commission. For me that means that both past and present UK governments and the Commission are worthless.
I can't discuss how well the EU or the Government have reduced red tape as it does very much appear to be in the eye of the beholder, but if the Commission and the UK have been rubbish at it together, how will it improve things if only the Commission's gone?
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by schoolboy99)
1. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.
2. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.
3. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.
4. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.
5. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.
6. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.
8. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again

(Yes I copied and pasted, it would have took to long to write them. )

Also, im not trying to start an argument so please no insulting and respect others opinions.
1) Interesting, got a source fromt he Commission?
2) I'm guessing it costs the average family, not every family? I think £1,200 is all I spend on food a year, I doubt it would suddenly be free.
3) So you can become a fisherman?
4) Some legislation is more important than others. The annual finance bill for example is one peice of legislation is more important than at least 10% of the EU stuff.
5) More liberal, or worse. As Switzerland is finding out, bilateral arangements can come down like a stack of cards.
6) What does Norway export? Oil? Think we can majic up a massive oil stockpile to export?
7) Where'd 7 go?
8) We can now, we can set corporation tax at 5% if we wanted.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by schoolboy99)
1. On the European Commission’s own figures, the annual costs of EU regulation outweigh the advantages of the single market by €600 to €180 billion.
2. The Common Agricultural Policy costs every family £1200 a year in higher food bills.
3. Outside the Common Fisheries Policy, Britain could reassert control over its waters out to 200 miles or the median line, which would take in around 65 per cent of North Sea stocks.
4. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.
5. Outside the EU, Britain would be free to negotiate much more liberal trade agreements with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff.
6. The countries with the highest GDP per capita in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionately, to the EU, than Britain does.
8. Outside the EU, Britain could be a deregulated, competitive, offshore haven. Oh, and we’d be a democracy again

(Yes I copied and pasted, it would have took to long to write them. )

Also, im not trying to start an argument so please no insulting and respect others opinions.
Regarding 1 and 8 your making the flawed assumption that all EU regulation is bad, there is probably a tonne which would be kept anyway like the working time directive. I believe that to be a weak argument for leaving.

Regarding 6, prove to me that this is due to being outside the EU and a not a result of in Norway's case a significant resource to population ratio (they export more oil than any country in Europe). There is no such proof.

Regarding 5, i agree somewhat. With that being said, the EU has and is seeking further trade agreements. You have the edge on this point.

Regarding 4, the HOC library has calculated a number of figures that are all lower than the German figure by virtue of not being in the Euro-zone. You also make the flawed assumption that this is a bad thing, i care more about the law is than where it comes from.

Regarding 2 and 3, i absolutely agree with you.
0
reply
JDWtsr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
I suggest that you read the following article regarding Norway and Switzerland's situation. It explains how these countries may not be members but if they wish to trade they still have to follow all relevant legislation, without actually having input into the forming of that legislation. It doesn't even go in to the fact that Switzerland has one of the most highly skilled work forces in the world, with a huge comparative advantage in the Finance and legal sectors. Norway is also an unrealistic comparison, as it is currently experiencing growth through huge oil extraction, something not available to us.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/20...ss-model-efta/

Another argument I often use is that leaving the EU will cause a huge breakdown in relationship between us and the Union. If we were to leave and then had favourable conditions it would encourage others to leave, therefore collapsing the union. For this reason the EU would not give us good options, good deals etc. as they would look to enforce the benefits of being a member to others.

I see many uninformed people claiming that leaving the EU will suddenly make us a much more attractive investment opportunity to the rest of the world, but they fail to realise that much of the recent investment happened because we were in the EU. The Nissan plant in Sunderland is one of the regions biggest employers and it was chosen to be built in the UK due to our trading links with the rest of the Union, and many other such investments like the Siemens wind turbine factory in Hull necessitated an EU country. If we were not in the EU it is undoubted these investments would not have happened.

Finally, your points focus on regulation on an entirely negative idea. These regulations are put in place so that resources can't be abused by the market. In the free market negative externalities are not taken into account so companies will not watch their levels of pollution/wastage etc. The restrictions are necessary to improve living conditions in the short term and to protect the environment in the long term.
0
reply
chrisawhitmore
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
I'm anti EU, but can't stick to my principles and not demand a source for at least 1 and 2. I'd be delighted if you had one.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Davij038)
Even if your figures are correct (which I highly doubt) I think it would still be worth it.
how
0
reply
Tamora
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Rakas21)

.
The 'Spot the Difference' poster you showed earlier ...

'Met several fishermen... '. It's nothing like as simple as you portray and it's a shame Hugh didn't remember everything he was told.

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, Barrie Deas said:

“People have been misled into supporting a simplistic, blunt ban that could have very damaging consequences. I told Hugh that discards in England had been reduced by 50 per cent in the last decade but that didn’t appear in his programme because he wanted to present himself as the US cavalry coming over the hill to rescue the wagon train.”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/enviro...cle4088866.ece

Who's the brazen opportunist? Farage has a deputy who attends committees when he can't.

I'm sure UKIP could have done more, but I'm happy that no other MEP works harder on the British public's behalf, so in spite of UKIP's shortcomings the party will still have my vote.
Attached files
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (21)
9.55%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (132)
60%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (30)
13.64%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (32)
14.55%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (5)
2.27%

Watched Threads

View All