To not understand the importance of being in the EU.

[bellarations]

It's slightly embarrassing actually.
Please can you explain in simple terms (formy benefit) the benefits to every day citizens in the UK.

The EU also protects us from too much experimentation with our food. In the US milk contains hormones and something labelled "organic" is not regulated. Here there are strict controls over food products and labelling. Of course we don't necessarily lose it but when farmers can produce more, more cheaply without these controls it's possible that they could be scrapped.

The EU is essentially based on the 'four freedoms': free movement of goods, services, capital and people.

And the EU MUST be reformed - in 18 years none of the annual accounts could be signed off, due to the huge anomolies. That is absolutely disgraceful - some people are lining their pockets like some tinpot dictatorship (I very strongly suspect) and the EU Body Politic is corrupt.

This is what the anti EU side to constantly, pluck a fact out of the air, refuse to contextualise it and then invent reasons for it based on nothing. The reason the court of auditors don't sign off the accounts is because they don't have the authority to delve into the disbursements in member states. Allowing the court to do this would massively increase the EU's power of fiscal oversight in single states - powers that the states are guarding.

For me, first and foremost it's trade and business.

EU countries invest $1.2 trillion in the UK; there are no barriers to investment from elsewhere in the EU. There would be if Britain was not part of the EU or at the least part of the European Free Trade Association (EU plus Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein - more on this later).

Other member states are forbidden from putting import duties on our goods and services.

We benefit from the heft of a trading bloc worth $16 trillion which is particularly important when negotiating reciprocal trade agreements with other countries/blocs - the UK alone is nowhere near as desirable a market and we would not necessarily get anywhere near as favourable terms.

Our net membership costs are 0.4% of GDP, the CBI estimates the benefits to be worth 4-5% of GDP. (All these figures come from the CBI, by the way.)

There are benefits to individual businesses through being part of supply chains - and having access to supply chains - without trade barriers. In 2009 (not a great year for business), 209 billion of the 293 billion we exported to other EU countries was used by other industries rather than being consumed directly by citizens.

So, why not leave the EU and create a free trade agreement with the EU like Norway, Swizterland and Iceland?

Well, you need to get a look at the conditions of such an agreement and joining EFTA. Membership of this free trade area - the only one realistically open to us if we left the EU - requires signing up to the four freedoms that form the basis of the EU. That is the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons. That fourth is key. Were we to emulate Norway, Iceland or Switzerland we would have to sign up to essentially the same immigration system as we have now.

So the issues people are worried about - in particular, immigration. Yes, it's an issue that's worrying many people, and the pressure on services and issues of integration in particular need urgent attention. Is leaving the EU the answer? I don't believe it is. During the recession, the UK economy contracted by 6.4%. If EU membership is worth 4-5% of our GDP lost, permanently (or even temporarily), that is a lot of businesses, a lot of jobs, and a lot of austerity. It would be 2008-2011 all over again.

My answer is this. Let's recognise that, while paying down the national debt and altering the structural deficit (which is the real issue, not the debt), let's invest in services. Let's make sure that we have a system that encourages integration (selection by religion in state schools is a really significant issue that needs addressing as it does support segregation of ethnic communities). Let's build more schools, fund GP surgeries better and ensure better access to health care, let's make it easy for people to integrate, and for god's sake let's introduce a minimum wage that is the same as a living wage.

And in the medium term, let's work to make the EU work better than it does now, improve the democratic process and make the most of this particular moment in the EU's history to achieve useful change in the way it operates, rather than treating a sore finger by amputating an arm.

Sarinka, Britain's (mostly) elected government ministers are part of the relevant Ministerial councils that agree all European legislation, by qualified majority voting. Curiously enough, Norway and Swizterland aren't represented, the UK government is.

And then laws also have to be agreed by the Parliament, where we are also represented. Those of our MEPs who can be arsed showing up to work, that is.

Perhaps someone would like to explain to me why we (the UK) need to be a member of the EU to facilitate free trade?

It depends on whether you're talking trade with EU/EFTA countries or trade elsewhere.

But regardless, without being party to some form or reciprocal trade agreement, the country you are selling to can put trade barriers in place, often as a means to protect domestic industries. Trade barriers include tariffs (import duties), rules around packaging/labelling/composition, or protectionist domestic subsidies.

Therefore our products become uncompetitive, versus those who are party to a trade deal with the importing country.

For the EU - to enjoy free trade we need to be part of the EU OR EFTA. For outside the EU, the argument goes that we can negotiate more favourable trade terms with third countries as a bloc representing a hugely lucrative market than as individual member states. There are a number of EU trade deals in place and one being negotiated with the US which would help put EU companies on a more competitive footing with US ones in that market.

.

Sorry about the essays! I've been accused of oversimplifying things in other threads and this seems to be my (over) reaction.

If it fit into a neat soundbite I suspect the pro-EU argument would be more accepted...

Well said Jassy.

Free trade - means Free trade in the EU (and Efta) - ie access to a vast market on our doorstep. If we weren't part of that then there would be no real incentive for the rest of Europe to play nicely with us - we would just be an insignificant off shore island with no real influence.

Being part of the EU gives us a stake in international agreements as part of one of the biggest trading units in the world. Far easier to have influence as part of the bigger unit (when say bargaining with US or China) than as an insignificant off shore island..

The same goes for foreign policy - Europe is far stronger standing together than as a disparate bunch of small countries.

The past mistakes such as the effects on countries like NZ are regrettable - all tied up with our past colonial dominance which is a whole other story. I think part of the issue is there are still some who aspire to returning to that role a masters of the world and find it hard to accept that that is long past and our best interests are with working well with our near neighbours. And bottom line - if you aren't an active part of the club you can't hope to influence how the club is run.

Also - as an individual most of us don't notice the benefits we get from EU membership. They are easy to ignore or just be totally unaware of. Doesn't mean they don't have a big impact on our lives.

The reason the court of auditors don't sign off the accounts is because they don't have the authority to delve into the disbursements in member states. Allowing the court to do this would massively increase the EU's power of fiscal oversight in single states - powers that the states are guarding.

Does that translate into "They don't/can't know what the money was spent on"?

I have just secured European social fund money for a project at my work which is going to really benefit some of our clients. Without this kind of financial pot to apply for, we may have to close down a valuable and important service. Yes, there will be arduous and intensive monitoring to do, but it also means I can give a member of my staff extra hours as well. This kind of funding would go.

The EU has paid for a rail link in East Anglia which is taking thousands of lorries off the A14. The EU has a flood relief fund, which this government could have applied for after this winter's floods - they chose not to, because they couldn't accept that anything good might come out of the EU. Because we are in the EU, my DDs can go and study in a country which doesn't charge £9k in tuition fees and get just as good an education, taught in English and valued by employers.

Yes, the EU needs reform - they need to stop decamping to Strasbourg for 3 months of every year just for a start, that would save £megabucks and it's only done to appease the French - and they need to row back on some of their crazier ideas like taking the right to manage taxation away from member states (not that that one will ever fly) but on the whole we are better in than out.

The vexed issue of benefits could be addressed by looking at the welfare system in other EU countries, where you need to have paid in to get anything out, and this applies to everyone, nationals and immigrants alike.

As others have said, we'd still have to negotiate with Europe and be subject to European decisions if we left Europe. We just wouldn't have internal influence or rights.

As already mentioned we can move to another EU state and be treated on a par with citizens in that state.

Anything you buy and pay tax on locally can be brought in from another EU state so you can take a van to France, fill it with cheap alcohol and bring it back with no tax to pay when you enter the EU.

EU court of human rights, if you think your rights are being violated in your hoe state and you have been to the highest court in the land you can take it further still.

Lots of the regulations/directives from the EU that have to be incorporated in to member states own laws are of particular benefit to women, or parents eg parental leave came from the EU and has made its way into English/Scottish law as maternity and paternity leave.

If you produce something like a special cheese or champagne then the EU ensures it is only your cheese made in that region or only champagne from the champagne region that can be sold as that in the EU. So a Californian wine maker can call a wine champagne in the USA but can't sell it in the EU as champagne.

Qualifications are recognised are equivalent so if you do move to Spain and you are a Dr, nurse, lawyer, teacher you can still work in your profession, you may have to register with a professional body but you don't need to retake your degree.

If your children don't want to face £27K debt they can go to uni in other EU countries and pay local fees, so in the Netherlands they would actually be paid a monthly amount to study, in Sweden they would pay no uni fees - and both these countries teach in English.

If an operation is not available in the UK on the NHS but is available in say Germany on their public health system then you can be sent there as an NHS patient for treatment. If anyone remember the swine flu outbreak, at least one person was treated in Sweden.

If you need an organ transplant then an organ can be sourced from anywhere in Europe and brought in without customs checks and delays.

f you buy meat/eggs/fish from anywhere in the EU the welfare standards are the same as in the UK (OK some anomalies with new countries joining but that's the basis). And the same applies to crops, if an insecticide is banned, then it is banned across the EU.

Anyone wanting to import to the EU from Asia, America, Australia can trade as if the EU was one country, they don't have to go through a load of red tape for each individual country which should mean cheaper goods for us.

If you speak a minority language such as Welsh or Gaelic then this is protected by the EU and money can be allocated for teaching or broadcasting in that language.

Theoretically the EU as a whole is planning what is farmed and gives subsidies to farmers to grow a particular crop or produce milk This has not always worked well so in the 1980s we had gluts of milk and wine, but is getting better.

The EU does "big picture" stuff. So, the Common Agricultural Policy has ensured that Europe can produce enough food to feed its citizens. However, such a big hammer has lots of little things wrong with it, and it's easy to find examples where CAP has caused problems for individuals.

Infrastructure -in Ireland, the road between the major cities of Belfast and Dublin (only 100 miles apart) used to be a twisty, pot holed, accident black hole that took at least 3 hours to travel. Now, thanks to European regional development funding, it's a smooth dual carriageway/ motorway the whole distance, making transport for goods and individuals much quicker and safer. ( There have been lots of road improvements in Ireland, that's just the most obvious example)

Funding for schemes that no individual government could or would do on its own due to political bias.

Environmental legislation - again, that would be too much of a vote loser for individual governments to implement.

Did you know the government was offered £2.5 billion for foodbanks from the EU and turned it down?

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/17/government-under-fire-eu-funding-food-banks

And yes, we got money for the floods: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-weather-uturn-may-see-david-cameron-reluctantly-tap-eu-flood-assistance-fund-9127137.html

America is desperate for the UK to stay in the EU, because it is their strongest link to the rest of the EU...

The 'Special Relationship' that the UK has with the USA (the benefits of which for the UK far outweigh the cost) will be permanently downgraded.

Arguably, leaving the EU will leave the UK relegated from its strongest allies who are Europe and the USA...