The EU debate - Part III

I did answer your actual point btw, but you got too carried away with the rant to notice....

Polands GDP is a fraction of ours, and therefore pro rata what they put in is far less than they take out - currently. As their GDP increases, their EU contribution will increase and their subsidies reduce.

 

I don't mind helping, but I prefer to choose who and how I help. With most groups there's a back story to who gets funding and why, with political groups it gets worse, so I can't imagine that the decisions in the EU are always done because it's in the best interest of those they claim to be helping, never mind the rest of us.

 

The problem with that though, is like it or not, in or out, the UK economy relies on a strong European economy. So it's in our interests that European countries economies flourish as best as possible.

 

The Govt DID fail them in the first place and hid behind EU rules, which conveniently ignored that Germany operate within the same rules, but took their case to the EU and gained exception.

We didn't and still haven't. Even the piece you posted said they could argue that steel manufacture in the UK was essential and therefore an exceptional case for subsidy should be allowed.

 

They can argue it, but other reports strongly suggest they won't get it, as our situation differs from the German one.

Fact is, the EU shouldn't be meddling in how we spend our money.

 

Nope! Wrong!

I think the UK is right to delay as long as possible, certainly until after the French & German GE's, then at least we'll know which Gvt we're dealing with. Starting negotiations now could mean that those leaders won't be around in a few months.

However, we are the ones resigning. It's therefore not unreasonable of the rest of the EU to say, 'Fine, off him go then. But don't hang around too long'

 

I get that.
And if, in not helping the other European countries, the UK is negatively impacted, then its our governments job to help them, because in not doing so, it negatively impacts the UK, and their job is to run the UK, to the best of their abilities.
But in situations where an EU member state needs help, or new legislation is imposed, and it will cost the UK, with no positive effects down the road? Then why should we give a ****?

 

The fact is, that the Tory Govt haven't even tried to challenge it, so seemingly have little interest in spending our money on it.

Using the EU as a get out is very convenient.

When have the Tories ever advocated private sector heavy industry subsidies??? Errrrmmm.......

 

Again, we haven't resigned.
We held a referendum, a non binding referendum, and the public, very narrowly, said they wouldn't like the UK to be in the EU.
We haven't resigned until we invoke Article 50

 

Technically true. But, as there's very little chance of any Gvt being stupid enough to deny the democratically expressed wishes of the people, we have resigned.

 

The EU costs us net 0.4% of our GDP

A wealthier continent with higher consumer consumption makes for a more lucrative free market longer term

 

I am not just talking in terms of costing our government money.
This is just a simplistic example, but say the EU passes legislation that somehow negatively impacts our countries security, or effects our interest rates, or a law which helps prosecute criminals in Greece for example, but opens up a loophole within british law that allows criminals to flourish.

 

We control our own interest rates, we're not in the Eurozone, so that's impossible.

I'm not sure how a law that helps prosecute people in one country could have the converse effect in another either?

NATO covers security in the region not the EU.

 

As the world's 5th biggest economy, personally I think we along with France and Germany have a moral duty to help, but I get that not everybody shares that idea. In purely pragmatic terms, it doesn't benefit any country to see one of it's neighbours go down the pan as there is a knock on effect. Take Greece for example, not a country that has a huge impact on the UK, but if the Greek economy failed, then you'd have (and had) mass unemployment which then effects output, spending etc. People then look to move to other countries to live and work, which has an effect on neighbouring countries ... and on it goes.

 

Also, the U.K. Is not a member of the Shengen treaty, so we handle our own security at point of entry.

 

We have security, maybe a bloke and his dog, but not much else

 

If it is only a bloke and his dog that will explain why I have to queue so long to get back into the UK

 

And this will change how exactly post Brexit?

What will change - seriously?

Will we not simply return to the days of people arriving on 'holiday' and simply never returning? Staying off the radar and living here illegally? therefore not paying tax and not contributing to the economy?

2.15m EU citizens work and pay tax over here currently btw.

 

What would you like to see?
Actually what you have said isn't true.
Have you seen the security set up at calais recently?
I even had my car tested for traces of explosives

 

I fly to Gatwick. Plenty of security there. Passport controls, etc.