The EU debate - Part III

For me it was more of a case of seeing that the ultimate aim of the EU, and its endgame goals were not something I wanted to see come to fruition.
I seriously doubt we could have changed **** all from the inside.
Its an overly bureaucratic, undemocratic, clusterfuck of overpaid MEPs who are there to skive off real work and collect a bigger cheque, all looking for the best way to earn as much money as possible, to the detriment of the member states they are supposed to serve.
All this talk of EU armies, EU controlled borders, the single currency.....all bullshit ideas.
The Uk managed to dodge the bulk of the ****tiest ideas (like the Euro currency), but for how long could we have kept that up? Just to be the annoying member state in the corner shouting "VETO!" at every crap idea they come up with.
Its ideals did not, and do not, mesh with our own, and staying in just out of fear seemed like a cop out.


And yes Uncle Pete, Free movement, or near as damn it, will be kept.
Our government are not going to risk an economic meltdown to placate silly ****s like you.

 

As I don't subscribe to the Torygraph I can't really comment on the first of your points but as it is in the paper it is hardly a secret.
Your second article is over six weeks old and highlights the fact that you and the Torygraph do not understand the difference between equality and equality of opportunity. It should also surely should have been written by a woman.
Your third point is, quite frankly, laughable.

 

Npt so sure, she is talking hard Brexit, but maybe some free movement will be allowed say 50k a year max with no benefits etc for 5 years or must have a job earning x amount.

 

And yet you "like" every apparent statement of fact that Fat Pete makes. You are teeth grindingly thick Kustard. Do your kids have to tie your shoelaces for you?

 

I don't think any of us are delighted or want the U.K. to fail. Personally, my family still live there. I still have property there. I want the U.K. To prosper.

Yes, both the pound and business confidence will sink like a stone when A50 is activated. How much of that is recoverable is open to conjecture. How much of the significant damage that will be done to the economy is again a matter of conjecture. Until we know the final terms of our deal to leave the EU we won't begin to know what the future holds. To assume that all the damage will be short term at this stage in negotiations, is a very big assumption.

Yes, the EU is a deeply flawed organization. Not least economically. However, we had just dragged ourselves out of the deepest recession since WW2, and because we weren't members of the single currency, we had significant advantages over our European partners. That is why I voted to remain.

The other reason I voted to remain is that we need Europe as a vital part of our future trade relations. Idiots like the three Brexiteers will alienate them completely, if they get their way.

Yes, the EU needs to change. But you'll change nothing from the outside looking in.

 

It's called using my brain, Kustard. You should try it some time!...

 

See that is where we disagree, the EU doesn't need to change, it needs to die.
There is no reason why we cannot have Trade, free movement, and all the other great advantages of alliance, without all the bullshit bureaucracy, loss of sovereignty and dictatorship like rules.
Willing co operation will always be better than forced coersion.

 

Nothing will change from being with in.

Better out and run your own country than allow others to dictate.

 

My brain is fine, you just make assumptions and guess work, with no evidence to back anything up with, typical remoaner, all scare, scare, scare.

 

Exactly, it would be like trying to reform the Nazi Party.
Sure you can try to change its image from the inside, but too many of its members have ideals and values wildly different from your own and their goals are far too bat **** to put up with.
Better to sever ties and help make something new, and better.

It should have stayed as the EEC.

 

Lots of developing nations will be glad to see and to the actions of the EU that are damaging them and the global economy.

 

Corruption costs EU ‘up to €990 billion a year’
Study says public procurement corruption alone costs the EU €5 billion per year.

By
RYAN COLLINS


3/22/16, 12:01 AM CET


Updated 3/22/16, 5:36 AM CET

The EU has a corruption problem that could cost it up to €990 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by the European Parliament and released on Monday.

Corruption in the EU comes in many forms and has multiple economic, social and political effects, according to the Cost of Non-Europe in the Area of Corruption Study by RAND Europe. Based on three scenarios using different methodologies that included both direct and indirect effects, the study found the EU suffers losses in its gross domestic product that range between €179 billion and €990 billion each year.

The figures are much higher than a 2014 estimate by the European Commission of €120 billion. However, the Commission’s study focused only on direct effects of corruption.

“Corruption is a big black hole at the heart of the European economy,” said Carl Dolan, director of Transparency International. “If companies see the public procurement process is rigged then they are not going to take part in that bid and therefore the public loses out because these aren’t competitive tenders.”

The study found that corruption related to public procurement was estimated to cost nearly €5 billion per year. Procurement corruption includes deliberately removing companies from the bidding process so there is only one viable candidate and limiting the amount of time a company has to respond to a tender for a new contract.

To reduce it, RAND Europe suggested that the EU implement a Union-wide e-procurement system, which would bring down the cost of corruption by an estimated €920 million. Another measure to cut corruption would be establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the study said. Such an office would investigate corruption cases and could reduce corruption costs by €0.2 billion per year.

http://www.politico.eu/article/corruption-costs-eu-990-billion-year-rand-study-fraud-funding/

 

There are wildly different values and ideals within the UK as well. We have those with Nazi views and ideals and those with far left ones. Does that mean it will be better for London to become independent of the U.K. and only have a trading relationship with the other constituent parts. We currently have a government elected by only 25% of the electorate dictating to the rest. Hardly a model of democracy and makes the EU a utopian democracy in comparison. If it is better for the UK to leave the EU, then it is better for London to leave the UK

 

Work it out for yourself, Kustard. It's blindingly obvious that there's a power struggle going on in the Tory party.

How can you 'have a strategy' to negotiate with the EU already in place, what May claims, when you can't even agree amongst yourselves?

I should have thought it was self evident. Apparently not.

 

Don't be ridiculous, how can London leave the UK? Its our capital.
Yes there are people with different views all over, but literally no one in the UK wants EU controlled borders, to adopt the Euro and have an EU controlled army.

 

This is pretty much my view. All those who say we could change things from being "in the club" is just wishful thinking as far as I am concerned.
However, from my own research, I didn't think the economy could handle Brexit, which is why I voted to remain. As an old git, I have my pension to consider!!

 

I think it would be more like trying to reform the Labour Party after years of Foot and Kinnock leftiness. Difficult but doable.

 

Where have I said anything about loss of sovereignty? I would never agree to that, and I doubt that the vast majority of the European people would either. Even Juncker has accepted that it's currently a non-starter. That there's no appetite for it.

Staying and pushing to reform the EU from within would have been far preferable. If push came to shove, we could then walk away knowing we had done all we could. And, almost certainly with our economy far better placed to withstand the shock of leaving.

 

May said there is a plan. Surely she wouldn't have made that up.

Simpletons like Pete and Kustard like to be told what to do by the Tories and the Daily Mail so they will believe it.

Just checked the website for their favourite rag. This is the lead story headline:

Once upon a time middle-aged women all got the chop, but here's the proof you DON'T have to cut your hair after the age of 45

Ula will be pleased.

 

There is among some.
A political Union among countries is always a bad idea, purely because every country has to protect its own interests, and the Union as a whole needs to operate on a "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" policy. Which is fine if you are the many, but **** if you are the few.
I only give a **** about the governance of the UK, as I live in the UK, and its the UK government that is funded by my Tax money.