How it Works5 mins ago
Oh the joys of being part of the EU
Without the EU these people would not be here, all Lithuanian
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-essex-12725927
http://www.shieldsgaz...for_robbery_1_3129319
http://content.met.po...7473562/1257246745756
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ngland-essex-12725927
http://www.shieldsgaz...for_robbery_1_3129319
http://content.met.po...7473562/1257246745756
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VHG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Alternative point of view to consider:
"The Single (or “Internal”) Market is the result of the EU’s policies on trade, industry, employment and consumer affairs. Since its launch on 1st January 1993, the Single Market has brought major benefits to businesses, consumers and employees alike. Some of the changes have been very noticeable - border controls have been abolished, cutting costs to business and speeding up the physical movement of goods and people across the Union.
Other changes have been less noticeable, but have made a real difference to people’s everyday lives. Standards have been harmonised for hundreds of products, producing a level playing field for manufacturers across the EU, regardless of where they are based. And “mutual recognition” of goods produced in one member of the Single Market by all the others means that if a product is good enough to be sold in one country, it cannot be excluded from sale in another. The overall effect has been to turn the EU into a “domestic” market for all citizens.
The EU is the world's largest international single market. Following the accession of Bulgaria and Rumania on 1st January 2007, the Single Market now includes the 27 Member States and also the three European Economic Area countries - Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. Its population numbers around 500 million people – a bigger trading area than the US and Japan combined."
"The Single (or “Internal”) Market is the result of the EU’s policies on trade, industry, employment and consumer affairs. Since its launch on 1st January 1993, the Single Market has brought major benefits to businesses, consumers and employees alike. Some of the changes have been very noticeable - border controls have been abolished, cutting costs to business and speeding up the physical movement of goods and people across the Union.
Other changes have been less noticeable, but have made a real difference to people’s everyday lives. Standards have been harmonised for hundreds of products, producing a level playing field for manufacturers across the EU, regardless of where they are based. And “mutual recognition” of goods produced in one member of the Single Market by all the others means that if a product is good enough to be sold in one country, it cannot be excluded from sale in another. The overall effect has been to turn the EU into a “domestic” market for all citizens.
The EU is the world's largest international single market. Following the accession of Bulgaria and Rumania on 1st January 2007, the Single Market now includes the 27 Member States and also the three European Economic Area countries - Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. Its population numbers around 500 million people – a bigger trading area than the US and Japan combined."
-cntd-
Single Market Achievements
In 2003, the Commission published an assessment of achievements during the first ten years of the Internal Market. According to European Commission statistics, in broad terms, the Single Market project has meant:
*
EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2002 was 1.8% higher (€164.5 billion) [£110 billion] than it would have been without the Single Market.
*
Over ten years, the Single Market has boosted the EU’s GDP by €877 billion [£588 billion]. This represents €5,700 [£3,819] of extra income per household.
*
EU Employment has grown (1992-2002) by 1.46% (an extra 2.5 million jobs) thanks to the Internal Market. Up to 3 million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU, around ten percent of the total workforce.
*
Intra-EU trade has increased as a percentage of GDP from less than 25% in 1993 to 35% in 2005
*
Foreign direct investment in the Single Market has risen from €23 billion [£15.4 billion] in 1992 to €159 billion [ £106.5 billion] in 2005.
*
60 Million customs clearance documents per year no longer need to be completed, cutting bureaucracy and reducing costs and delivery times.
But it’s not just at the national level that we can see evidence of the Single Market making a real difference – evidence of the benefits for business, individual consumers and employees is also clear.
Single Market Achievements
In 2003, the Commission published an assessment of achievements during the first ten years of the Internal Market. According to European Commission statistics, in broad terms, the Single Market project has meant:
*
EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2002 was 1.8% higher (€164.5 billion) [£110 billion] than it would have been without the Single Market.
*
Over ten years, the Single Market has boosted the EU’s GDP by €877 billion [£588 billion]. This represents €5,700 [£3,819] of extra income per household.
*
EU Employment has grown (1992-2002) by 1.46% (an extra 2.5 million jobs) thanks to the Internal Market. Up to 3 million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU, around ten percent of the total workforce.
*
Intra-EU trade has increased as a percentage of GDP from less than 25% in 1993 to 35% in 2005
*
Foreign direct investment in the Single Market has risen from €23 billion [£15.4 billion] in 1992 to €159 billion [ £106.5 billion] in 2005.
*
60 Million customs clearance documents per year no longer need to be completed, cutting bureaucracy and reducing costs and delivery times.
But it’s not just at the national level that we can see evidence of the Single Market making a real difference – evidence of the benefits for business, individual consumers and employees is also clear.
-cntd-
Greater competition
Much has been done to eliminate anti-competitive practices since 1993 – all thanks to the single market. The EU has been able to tackle many anti-competitive practices such as cartels, monopolies, and excessive and unnecessary regulation. For example:
An investigation into price fixing in the UK for replica football kits resulted in large price reductions and wider consumer choice;
Deregulation in the UK retail opticians sector, allowing entry and advertising, saw a significant rise in the number of new players in the market, improved product quality and consumer choice;
The price of books has fallen, thanks to the ending of the Net Book Agreement. Indeed the quantity of books and number of titles published increased, despite fears to the contrary.
Greater competition
Much has been done to eliminate anti-competitive practices since 1993 – all thanks to the single market. The EU has been able to tackle many anti-competitive practices such as cartels, monopolies, and excessive and unnecessary regulation. For example:
An investigation into price fixing in the UK for replica football kits resulted in large price reductions and wider consumer choice;
Deregulation in the UK retail opticians sector, allowing entry and advertising, saw a significant rise in the number of new players in the market, improved product quality and consumer choice;
The price of books has fallen, thanks to the ending of the Net Book Agreement. Indeed the quantity of books and number of titles published increased, despite fears to the contrary.
Not trying to say that membership of the EU is ALL positive, but by the same token, it would be unwise to simply focus on the negatives.
Like bar/hotel owners in southern Spain - they would be shortsighted to suggest that all British males between 18 and 35 should be banned from holidaying there, because a tiny minority are disgusting drunken yobs...
Like bar/hotel owners in southern Spain - they would be shortsighted to suggest that all British males between 18 and 35 should be banned from holidaying there, because a tiny minority are disgusting drunken yobs...
sp1814: Deregulation in the UK retail opticians sector, allowing entry and advertising, saw a significant rise in the number of new players in the market, improved product quality and consumer choice;
This proved very beneficial to me and countless others requiring lenses for their specs when the ash cloud enveloped Europe. My optician was unable to get my lenses as the suppliers were in Portugal and Poland, did this mean that we no longer made optical quality lenses in this country? I'm not sure that destroying our manufacturing capability has been for the best, we really need more manufacturing jobs, not less.
This proved very beneficial to me and countless others requiring lenses for their specs when the ash cloud enveloped Europe. My optician was unable to get my lenses as the suppliers were in Portugal and Poland, did this mean that we no longer made optical quality lenses in this country? I'm not sure that destroying our manufacturing capability has been for the best, we really need more manufacturing jobs, not less.
I don't think the downturn in British manufacturing jobs can be laid at the feet of our European partners. Britain started shedding manufacturing jobs in the 80s, and now, our greatest exports are banking, insurance and commodities.
The Tory government in the 80s is responsible for the dynamism of the city (through deregulation of the financial markets) and the destruction of the traditional manufacturing and energy industries.
The Tory government in the 80s is responsible for the dynamism of the city (through deregulation of the financial markets) and the destruction of the traditional manufacturing and energy industries.
boxtops
/// Without the EU, our own lowlife would be doing this instead.///
That's a bit of strange reasoning.
Are you saying that because those from Lithuania are committing these crimes, it stops our own 'lowlife' from committing them?
Of course it doesn't, we are only multiplying the number of criminals in this country by importing more from abroad, courtesy of the EU.
/// Without the EU, our own lowlife would be doing this instead.///
That's a bit of strange reasoning.
Are you saying that because those from Lithuania are committing these crimes, it stops our own 'lowlife' from committing them?
Of course it doesn't, we are only multiplying the number of criminals in this country by importing more from abroad, courtesy of the EU.
sp1814
On behalf of the Euro-sceptics, I prefer to call them, Euro-realists.
For wealthy countries, such as the UK, the cost of being a member of the EU is greater than the benefits they get out.
The costs of EU membership could be holding back faster developing countries, particularly the UK, which has a more global economy than many member states.
In 2006, the EU's Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen, estimated the cost of EU regulation to be €600 billion per annum. This is the equivalent of the EU losing the entire output of a medium-sized country like the Netherlands every year!
Many EU policies affect ordinary Europeans in the form of EU regulations that attempt to impose a single standard across the EU, but which are never debated by national parliaments.
Most EU decisions are made or shaped by the EU Commission which is led by unelected Commissioners and run by an appointed bureaucracy.
On behalf of the Euro-sceptics, I prefer to call them, Euro-realists.
For wealthy countries, such as the UK, the cost of being a member of the EU is greater than the benefits they get out.
The costs of EU membership could be holding back faster developing countries, particularly the UK, which has a more global economy than many member states.
In 2006, the EU's Enterprise and Industry Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen, estimated the cost of EU regulation to be €600 billion per annum. This is the equivalent of the EU losing the entire output of a medium-sized country like the Netherlands every year!
Many EU policies affect ordinary Europeans in the form of EU regulations that attempt to impose a single standard across the EU, but which are never debated by national parliaments.
Most EU decisions are made or shaped by the EU Commission which is led by unelected Commissioners and run by an appointed bureaucracy.
And there must be some doubt over some of the benefits you cite, sp:
“EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2002 was 1.8% higher (€164.5 billion) [£110 billion] than it would have been without the Single Market.
*
Over ten years, the Single Market has boosted the EU’s GDP by €877 billion [£588 billion]. This represents €5,700 [£3,819] of extra income per household.”
This is a highly speculative assumption and probably one which could not readily be confirmed or otherwise. The GDP of most developed countries has increased markedly in recent years (discounting the current downturn). To suggest that the single market was significantly responsible for the increased GDPs of the individual nations is very debatable.
“Up to 3 million British jobs are linked to exports..”
Very probably true. But is it suggested that these exports would not be made were it not for the single market?
However, leaving that aside, all of the trading advantages you quote, sp, (which, it has to be said, come from a somewhat partisan source) could have been achieved without allowing the free movement of people. It’s called a trading agreement and is just as effective in improving trade as is the Federal State that is being foisted upon Europe. But without the disadvantages.
There is absolutely no reason why free movement of goods has to be accompanied by free movement of people and it is that which has caused the problems highlighted by VHG’s question.
“EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2002 was 1.8% higher (€164.5 billion) [£110 billion] than it would have been without the Single Market.
*
Over ten years, the Single Market has boosted the EU’s GDP by €877 billion [£588 billion]. This represents €5,700 [£3,819] of extra income per household.”
This is a highly speculative assumption and probably one which could not readily be confirmed or otherwise. The GDP of most developed countries has increased markedly in recent years (discounting the current downturn). To suggest that the single market was significantly responsible for the increased GDPs of the individual nations is very debatable.
“Up to 3 million British jobs are linked to exports..”
Very probably true. But is it suggested that these exports would not be made were it not for the single market?
However, leaving that aside, all of the trading advantages you quote, sp, (which, it has to be said, come from a somewhat partisan source) could have been achieved without allowing the free movement of people. It’s called a trading agreement and is just as effective in improving trade as is the Federal State that is being foisted upon Europe. But without the disadvantages.
There is absolutely no reason why free movement of goods has to be accompanied by free movement of people and it is that which has caused the problems highlighted by VHG’s question.
You’re right about much of the Press, sp. I wonder why this should be? Could it be that they reflect the opinions of much of the population? These have not been properly canvassed for almost forty years and in that time the “Common Market” has morphed out of all recognition into today’s EU.
Successive governments have told the electorate what is (allegedly) good for them and foisted it upon them without finding out what they really want.
Successive governments have told the electorate what is (allegedly) good for them and foisted it upon them without finding out what they really want.
New Judge
I would not trust the public in a referendum on Europe. Not at all.
Why? Because it's too complex a subject to put before the people. In the same way, I wouldn't trust the public to make an informed decision on the Treasury's policy on estate tax liabilities with regards to the Land Registry Acts and the implications to rural regeneration.
Some stuff is just too important to be put into the hands of the thickos (and I include myself in that).
This is why we have democracy. If people want out of Europe, then they have to put their money where their mouths are, and vote for a party that has withdrawal in their manifesto.
And people won't vote for these parties, for obvious reasons (people may be thickos, but they DO have standards).
I would not trust the public in a referendum on Europe. Not at all.
Why? Because it's too complex a subject to put before the people. In the same way, I wouldn't trust the public to make an informed decision on the Treasury's policy on estate tax liabilities with regards to the Land Registry Acts and the implications to rural regeneration.
Some stuff is just too important to be put into the hands of the thickos (and I include myself in that).
This is why we have democracy. If people want out of Europe, then they have to put their money where their mouths are, and vote for a party that has withdrawal in their manifesto.
And people won't vote for these parties, for obvious reasons (people may be thickos, but they DO have standards).
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Food & Drink5 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
Food & Drink7 mins ago