Name me one good thing that we have from the EU...

[Maursh]

which we would not have if we left. I am not after scaremongering rhetoric, but facts. I really like to have a balanced point of view, but I cannot for the life of me see any reason to remain. So give me some FACTS

scary teacher - on peace you are incorrect. the EU uses different methods to NATO - the EU has tried to build solidarity and connections through trade, initiatives like Erasmus, building governance and legislation on rights etc through the community acquis (imagine what would have happened otherwise iwth Eastern Europe?). NATO is the one with the bombs. You're not going to tell me that peace is only linked to having military might are you...

Peace in Europe - nothing to do with the EU...but an awful lot to do with NATO, which is not part of the EU

I don't think that's supportable really. Economic interdependence has forced the members to co-operate 'intensively and continuously', to quote the Economist, and has as its requirement of membership an ongoing commitment to democracy, human rights and justice. This is a strong bulwark against conflict between its members.

As history has shown quite often, military alliances aren't a reliable way to stop wars.

Medical treatment - depends where you receive it.

Mostly it depends if you receive it in a public or private hospital. The EHIC entitles you to the same state-funded health services (free of charge) as local residents, but it doesn't cover private healthcare, which I think is pretty reasonable (but can be a problem if you go to a country that has many private hospitals, granted - then it's worth considering getting travel insurance too).

If a state-funded healthcare provider refuses to take your EHIC, which shouldn't happen but has been known to, then you do have to pay upfront, but will get reimbursed later. Same if you weren't able to show an EHIC for whatever reason.

Nearlyhellokitty, nope, I don't think I am incorrect at all. NATO has been in existence since 1949, and predates the EEC/EU etc, and we haven't had war since then.

The EU couldn't sort Kosovo; NATO had to intervene. Look at all the Eastern European states that are NATO members - many of which became NATO nations well before they acceded to the EU.

You might find if you bother to look that the Washington Treaty, in particular article 5, guarantees the peace in Europe, better and more thoroughly than anything else. If you also bother to look at what NATO does, it isn't just about bombs (and it's the NATO nations that have those).

JassyRadlett it is entirely supportable actually. Those things you mention are built on top of the peace that NATO has guaranteed since 1949. Without that, none of the rest would have happened.

Chalalala UZ Leuven is a public hospital in Belgium, and Mum got billed, as I paid it when she posted it to me.

I get billed every time I go to the doctor as they pay for the GP here.

scaryteacher - the point is that it's a joint effort. soft power + hard power.
www.academia.edu/11090229/Similarities_and_Differences_between_NATO_and_the_EU_Enlargement

quite a lot more complex than you paint it.

"The NATO and the EU Eastern enlargement meant a final end to the Cold War antagonism and the prospect for political stability in a wider Europe. It also created the prospects for a secure future and opening of new markets, promising long term growth and prosperity for both, Eastern and Western Europe. The NATO was created to deter, what was then perceived as a security threat from the Soviet Union, and to maintain internal peace and order within Europe. The EU was founded to build the unity of the Western Europe through integration and cooperation, to avoid extreme rivalries and bloody conflicts between European powers, and to increase the welfare of their population. ... Differences, after the Cold War the reasons for NATO’s existence were contested, meanwhile the EU was more relevant than ever; however, NATO enlarged eastward first. The EU had more developed and precise criteria, which are non-negotiable and closely enforced, whereas NATO criteria are general and much more flexible. The EU has much more financial power as well as human resources to support potential members in their accession processes; whilst NATO lacks both...."

scaryteacher then as I said, presumably you/she got reimbursed, though?

the only way the NHS would not reimburse is if the procedure was not something that would have been covered by the NHS in the UK. As far as I'm aware, anyway.

JassyRadlett it is entirely supportable actually. Those things you mention are built on top of the peace that NATO has guaranteed since 1949. Without that, none of the rest would have happened.

NATO's great, but it's not possible to put the last 70 years entirely at its feet. But it's not controversial to say that the EU and its predecessors have played a big role in building a peaceful, prosperous Europe, with the goal of peace being built in right from the Treaty of Paris. In particular the fact that governments with pretty much no track record of peaceful coexistence were bound into a system that required their leaders to work together on a continuous basis on common issues and challenges can't be brushed aside as a relevant factor 'because NATO'. Or the blurring of economic borders that promotes mutual benefit, some of the motivations for conflict disappear. Or the economic benefits that have encouraged states from Greece and Spain onwards to develop their post-totalitarian political systems according to shared values of democracy and human rights in part through the carrot of membership.

It also totally ignores the role of economics in diplomacy how economic means can achieve political ends without military action.

While I'm checking out Article 5, you might want to read the bits of the Treaties of Paris and Rome that talk about the goal of peace, if we're thinking it's words on paper in the late 40s/early 50s that ensure peace, rather than what's actually happened since.

I can see no logical basis for ignoring all he factors above and claiming that the EU has played no role in helping to end a cycle of conflict among its members after centuries of the opposite being true, simply because the awesome power, might and influence of NATO renders all else an irrelevance that can easily be dismissed.

Peaceful end to cold war. Just sayin'

Lavenderdoily whatever makes you think that the Cold War ended? Do you really think that it did?

JassyRadlett 'It also totally ignores the role of economics in diplomacy how economic means can achieve political ends without military action.' Mmm, how come Turkey has been in NATO for ages, but not the EU, and is still there? Remarkable piece of non economic diplomacy on someone's part really. Political end of Turkey joining NATO without military action.

Article 5 isn't just words on a piece of paper...it is what underpins the Alliance today, even though it was drawn up in 1949. It is what each NATO nation signs up to now. It is what Montenegro will sign when it accedes to NATO. The fact that each NATO nation signs up to Article 5 is what has happened since 1949, and is what has guaranteed the peace in Europe since then.

Right, fascinating though this is, back to the GCSE marking.....

Notice that you totally miss the point teacher - well explained by the article I linked to about how nath and the EU works. In fact perfectly shows how turkey might b a member of nato. Seems like there might be some issues with turkey right? Funny how they may be missing some important legislation on equal rights etc.. but yet does not really have the access it would like as well. Also pretty unstable itself at the moment I'd say

' Name me one good thing that we have from the EU.
which we would not have if we left.'

Banning of the sale of powerful vacuum cleaners and hairdryers.

I think Mr. Cameron can show us a few of the advantages to being interviewed EU.

He really does talk sense.

Back to the title of the thread...

The EU gives huge grants to local councils to spend on upgrading things like public street lighting to more energy efficient options (LED) which would ordinarily cost millions in capital expenditure. The knock on effect is that those councils can save money going forward on repairs, maintenance and most importantly energy. Not only is this fantastic for the environment and reducing carbon emissions (taking the heat off other sectors and industries to meet our targets) but obviously good for local people, who get improved infrastructure and local councils with more money to spend elsewhere.

Similarly for green cycle routes in major town and cities. Noticed any where you live? Probably EU funding. Safer for you family, greener and cheaper and an investment in a green future.

Not to mention legislation over these areas too; legislation brought in to reduce energy consumption, reduce cost and reduce emissions. Could we legislate this ourselves? Could we give these councils the money we save in "membership fees" to the EU? We could probably give them some money eventually, but we do not have the facilities, the infrastructure or the trained staff (engineers, surveyors, researchers, analysts etc.) currently utilised to study and assess the options; right now we have the EU for that. We would have to find these resources from somewhere, we wouldn't get the economies of scale we get from the EU doing this on everybody's behalf, we would be doing the same work again at our own cost.

So we could do it. We could have those things, but not straight away. Not any time soon. And not without spending an awful lot of money first to have a scaled down version of what we already have to try and mimic the good it is already doing us.**

**Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of downsides too, but this one is an upside, which is what was asked for.

The EU provides truly excellent salaries and outstandingly generous pensions for its workers.

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/campaign-highlights-kinnocks-10m-eu-2100178

NearlyHalloKitty since when do you have to have equal rights legislation to be a member of NATO? Do tell. I'm pretty sure that the UK and the US didn't have equal rights when NATO was founded. Given Turkey and Greece both joined in the 50s, did you expect them to have equal rights legislation then? It will be interesting with Turkey to see if NATO asks them to leave when Erdogan decides to suspend democracy. Didn't the EU suspend democracy when they toppled Berlusconi, put in Monti and rinsed and repeated with Greece?

What I took from that article, once I'd gone through the signing up nausea, is that NATO has more flexibility in its criteria than the EU does for those who accede, and that the EU bar for acceding is getting harder to meet even for current EU member states. I don't consider flexibility to be a bad thing, and that is just what the EU doesn't have.

Interesting that Russia sees NATO as more of a threat than the EU, although I would dispute that Russia had no direct access to NATO. The NATO/Russia council had been ongoing for years until the current annexation of Crimea and Russia was a PARP country.

scary the point is that you DON'T have to have equal rights legislation to join Nato.

The article also highlights that both sides are important - the soft and the hard.

I mean, you don't achieve stability only through military force

Back to the title of the thread...

The EU gives huge grants to local councils to spend on upgrading things like public street lighting to more energy efficient options (LED) which would ordinarily cost millions in capital expenditure. The knock on effect is that those councils can save money going forward on repairs, maintenance and most importantly energy. Not only is this fantastic for the environment and reducing carbon emissions (taking the heat off other sectors and industries to meet our targets) but obviously good for local people, who get improved infrastructure and local councils with more money to spend elsewhere.

Do you ever stop to think 'Where does the EU get its money from?'

There is no such thing as "EU money'. All the money that people call 'EU money' is the money that the citizens of the Uk (you and I) and other member countries give to the EU. The EU then takes their cut of that money and hands the reminder to the EU countries to spend. It therefore hands back less to us than we give to it originally.

Knowing as we do that LED lighting saves councils a substantial about in energy councils would be very likely to have done this themselves without having to be told to do it by the EU.

Could we give these councils the money we save in "membership fees" to the EU?

Emphatically YES. And more because we could give the money to the councils directly instead of handing it to the EU for them to take their cut.

We could probably give them some money eventually, but we do not have the facilities, the infrastructure or the trained staff (engineers, surveyors, researchers, analysts etc.) currently utilised to study and assess the options; right now we have the EU for that.

You do not. You have 30,000 highly paid big corporation and big bank lobbyists all lobbying the EU to get the law changed in their favour - while fooling people into thinking they are doing this tuff for the public good.

We would have to find these resources from somewhere, we wouldn't get the economies of scale we get from the EU doing this on everybody's behalf, we would be doing the same work again at our own cost.

No economies of scale with the EU - just duplication and unnecessary red tape that affects most small businesses unnecessary as they don't even export to the rest of the EU.

There are no upsides to the EU.

The so-called benefits are just illusions for which you and other tax-payers are paying for dearly.

We are quite capable of governing ourselves like the other 168 countries in the world do.

I find it quite incredible that people are planning to hand control of their country and their lives, to an unelected, undemocratic organisation.

Why did we fight wars in the past? We fought wars so we had the right to make our own laws to suit our own country without outside interference. That is called sovereignty and we have lost it.

There are some things you just do not do and taking order from a foreign power is a slippery slope. What happens when Le Pen is voted in or Alternative fur Deutschland and they start appointing EU Commissioners who start making some very unpalatable EU laws. Are we going to blithely implement them? We wouldn't have a choice, especially when the EU has its EU army.

That's why we need to Leave and start governing our country in our interests and deal with whatever economic effects occur. Economies can go up and down and when you're in charge of your own laws you can influence your economy )unlike Greece that is shackled to the Euro) . Democracy is priceless and precious. It's time we regained it.

wow spinflight of course there are economies of scale with the EU. And unfortunately our government has not had a good record on that kind of spending.

seriously if you come here and want to argue that there is no upside to the EU , etc then you have no credibility because it shows an incredible bias and lack of understanding of how it all actually works.

Why did we fight wars in the past? We fought wars so we had the right to make our own laws to suit our own country without outside interference. That is called sovereignty and we have lost it.

Also power, land, resources. Actually mostly power, land, resources when it comes to the drivers of conflict in Europe over the past few centuries.

There are some things you just do not do and taking order from a foreign power is a slippery slope.

Possibly, but the EU isn't a foreign power; we have democratic representation within it, which makes it the opposite of 'foreign'.

What happens when Le Pen is voted in or Alternative fur Deutschland and they start appointing EU Commissioners who start making some very unpalatable EU laws. Are we going to blithely implement them?

If that happens alongside enough like-minded types in the
parliament and council to pass them, that would be a more sensible time to consider leaving.

We wouldn't have a choice,

Yes we would, unless there is treaty change. On which we would have a referendum.

especially when the EU has its EU army.

Hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering.

I'll give you one 'economy of scale' that i find quite terrifying.

The EU is introducing an EU Tax Number for all of its 508 million citizens. So instead of being identified by your National Insurance Number when you pay tax and NI at present in the UK, you will have a EU Tax Number.

So, there are a couple of ways of looking at this.

There's the pragmatic way. This says that an EU Tax Number is a pragmatic solution to the fact that all EU citiens can live and work in any EU country theu chose so it would be sensible to have a centralised tax system that centrally recognieses tax paid in whatever EU country the person has earned it in.

The other view is more sinister.
A centralised EU tax collection system means that every EU country would be surrendering its means of collecting taxes from its citizens. Each country would be reliant on the EU for data and information about taxes and would also be reliant on the EU to return to taxes to the countries in which they were paid.
What if the EU wanted to punish a country - the country could do nothing about it because it has no means of raising the taxes it needs from its own workers because the EU controls the tax system.

That is a form of control I do not want to hand to the EU.

And it's no good saying - Oh we've got a special deal/ It won't work The UK would have to be part of these developments as EU workers are working and paying taxes in the UK so it would need to participate in the centralised system.

And so creeping control is established by the EU superstate. Just like Greece found, when it surrendered control of it's currency. When you surrender control you severely limit your options.