Pro EU lobby - where is it and how can I join?

[Darcey2105]

Just watching question time and the EU referendum debate. Firstly I don't really get why people are against the EU. Specifically Rupert Murdoch - what's it ever done to him? And The Telegraph, why is it so against it if it's supposed to be tory and support business - totally don't get it.

But no one is talking about all the benefits it brings. Maternity leave and maternity pay anyone? That all came from the EU, but no one is talking about that. You just need to look at Australia, which many would think as comparable to the UK in many ways, but they get hardly any maternity leave. Jersey in the channel islands only in the last few years changed the law to give women two weeks maternity leave. Before that they got none at all! Jersey follows the UK laws and traditions in every way but one - they are not in the EU, so don't implement any EU regulations.

The EU have a part-time workers regulation, which covers your rights

The EU ecommerce and unfair contract terms regulations protect consumers with basic consumer rights.

And the human rights act?

Anyway, that is all off the top of my head. But where is the pro-EU lobby, ad how can I get involved in shining a light?

For decades I have followed global politics and markets, and can honestly say that while I believe that the UK should probably remain ‘in’ the EU on some gut feeling, I have never seen the qualified facts to come to a balanced decision based on pros and cons.

So when I listened to Question Time last night and despaired as heard the same threats (unqualified lies?) should we leave - I seriously hope the quality of debate improves dramatically;

The 3 million jobs we will lose; why 3 million if we leave the EU, where does that number come from, does it matter we import more than we export to the EU, so should we leave, why would the EU then look to restrict that trade?

Would or could expanding on all the recent efforts to expand global trade, not take up any employment lost if left EU membership and there were job losses?

The benefits of being in the EU trading block; when of all the global trading blocks it is shrinking rather than growing, and how much of a comfort blanket is ’EU trade’ within 500 million citizens when in 2010 we were doing more business in Ireland, than the combined 3 billion citizens of just the Brazil, Russia, India and China emerging nations.

The point being that we are a trading nation, it is a big world out there if we remained competitive and focus on GLOBAL trade.

The cost of being in the EU; apart from our NET average annual contribution of ????, based on what we pay in and receive back that COULD , how restricted are our businesses competing with/in the Far East and the Americas, due to infamous and costly EU red tape, when our competitors and competitor nations do not?

From being more globally active/competitive and reaping the trade/tax benefits, plus contribution savings, why couldn’t the UK then pay/offer the same benefits of being in the EU?

The loss of influence in Europe should we leave; amongst 28(?) countries with vetos, how much influence do we have now, when as far as I can see, every major decision seems to be a diluted whitewash based on (others) national interests?

I will stop there, but to my mind even if just those four issues are addressed and we are given the FACTS, every UK citizen will have a far better understanding of the issues, in order to make an INFORMED decision when voting to stay IN or get a negotiated OUT.

Thanks for the reply Isitme. I don't know how we will ever see a balanced list of pros and cons as everyone putting the effort in has a hidden agenda. Mind you, the BBC should really be impartial on this, so they could lead the way here.

Everything you have mentioned in your post is economic, and that is the way the debate, such as it is, has been run. The points I raised have no direct correlation to an economic benefit, but they improve the lives of British citizens immeasurably.

You can't put a price on maternity leave. Sure I'm out of work for a year, and it is nice for me to bond with my baby. but how about the child's emotional and social development in having a strong bond with a single care giver. That kind of security grows well balanced citizens for our country.

The 'money in' vs 'money out' question is a very short term way to look at the EU. The EU pours investment into marginalised areas that need help. Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland have all received lots of money every year since we joined the EU. 'Subsidiarity' I think it's called. Ireland experienced the Celtic Tiger, so may not have needed so much money in those years, but after their crash, they probably needed a lot of money again.

Likewise, Scotland probably doesn't get as much money as it once did in the 80s. But in a few years if a region goes into poverty, it will get the money again. (and obviously, with so many more members to the EU, I imagine the worry is that they will use up all the subsidiarity money.)

So the economic arguments aside, there are lots of other benefits to the EU too. With subsidiarity, the EU was taking Britian's contribution, and reinvesting it in the regions in Britain that needed it the most. Why didn't the UK government do that itself with our own money?? Who knows? But I bet the fact that these poor regions of Britain are sparsely populated and don't have any clout with votes would have something to do with it.

The challenge for Britain is to be a positive force within the EU, so we can shape the direction. All this hanging on the sidelines mean they move on without us. We need to be in it to win it!

Will be watching this thread closely. Still not sure what I think about being I'm the EU. Definitely didn't want to join the Euro but not sure I'd want the leave the 'common market' aspect. Look forward to the discussion!

Darcey2105 …. Further to your post starting with ”Everything you have mentioned in your post is economic, and that is the way the debate, such as it is, has been run. The points I raised have no direct correlation to an economic benefit, but they improve the lives of British citizens immeasurably.”

I get your point on the apparent narrow view at mainly looking at our membership of the EU in economic terms, but are you aware that we ARE a fairly substantial net contributor to the EU – and that can go up substantially when there are sometimes ‘adjustments’ to contributions based on how well, or badly, member economies have done?

I ask that as if we analyse what you are saying;

• The UK is paying more into some EU central fund for the privilege of having people in Brussels decide where to spray (less) money around the UK, on our behalf. Granted it does look as if UK governments are so pathetic they need to go through this process in order for funds to go on regional projects – but I’m sure if you looked at recent regional funding, including the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ project – there can be more regional focus and out of the EU, maybe repeat maybe, we’d have more money to do it.

• The UK keeping more of our own money that otherwise would go on projects within the poorer EU members, is incapable of using that money or legislating here, to provide for or offer to UK citizens, any current or future EU social benefits e.g. maternity care, or a pick n mix of other global schemes we see.

• The UK is ‘in it to win it’ EU at the moment, and while we can be ‘a positive force’, just taking France as an example of trying to work within the EU, that is like a very ideologically different Conservative and Labour Party deciding major policies i.e. Corporation tax and restrictive but ‘fairer’ labour policies, with 26 other countries chipping in. To my mind if the UK has the better economic model and EU states will fight our reforms, why not ‘let them move on without us’, and we will go further.

Look all the above is rather simplistic, but based on the 'known knowns'.

But if the EU continues to want tighter integration/federalism, it will become globally less competitive at least until all States of very different economies reach some kind or parity, within some top heavy and expensive bureaucratic umbrella – in which case we would be the less competitive far western outpost, within an organisation of mediocrity.

The EU will want to stifle individual competitiveness, as what was the first thing Germany and France told the Dublin government it had to do to get an ECB/IMF financial bailout; it was to raise substantially their highly competitive 12.5% Corporation Tax. The Irish told them to feck off, and they recovered far quicker than the other Portugal Italy Greece Spain nations needing post crash financial help, growing their economy faster to aid recovery.

All that aside I hope we can remain ‘in’ the EU, but only in a heavily reformed EU, as if an EU with much slower growth and twice the unemployment of the UK still fight reforms to change that, what hope is there for the future of an inefficient, uncompetitive, trading block – offering its citizens loads of sweeties now, that will be even more unaffordable in years to come.

neweuropeans.net/ is a pretty good starting point

Oh thanks widow I've just looked them up and they look kind of what I was looking for.

It made me think though, that the European flag imagery just doesn't resonate with British people, the same way it does with other Europeans.

I'm obviously pro-EU, but I don't particularly want to identify myself as European.

And this got me thinking, that Britain as a whole is so anti-EU (mainly through the press) that it's almost shameful for politicians to admit they've worked in the EU. Really weird thing for me to say, I know. But in the last leadership debate before the election, Nick Clegg got asked a question about the EU. He said he believes we should stay in, and it's better for Britain. but he didn't really say much more than that - like for example he worked for years in Brussels as a negotiator for the UK Government.

Firstly, that sounds like a really good job, secondly, he must have really good knowledge of everything we've signed up to do, and thirdly why does he never talk about it??

Also, Neil Kinnock's son, who has just been elected as a Labour MP, he has had a glittering career in the European Commission. I wonder how much he's going to talk about that - and lead the way in the EU referendum debate.

Puke - I just idly wondered who my MEP is - turns out it's Nigel Farage!!!! time to get a-lobbying to give him a piece of my mind!!

Nigel Farage as MEP, that's unfortunate!

Yes, I certainly didn't vote him in, that's for sure. It's ironic that he's paid a big salary by the EU just to slag it off. I have to say I don't think any MEP is effective really as they have limited powers. But they should be doing more to ensure their constituents know what they're doing on our behalf.

I just found this campaign group which is more like what I was looking for - www.britishinfluence.org/

Isitme - yes the EU is only one trading bloc among many, but to mention the obvious, the EU is on our doorstep. So transport costs are much reduced and ditto delivery time. Given 10% of UK jobs are involved in food production and most of our food exports are to the EU, that's a lot of jobs that would be at risk if the EU had import tariffs. Many other low-value stuff is traded with the EU and the equivalents that Russia, China and India, Brazil etc produce are mostly sold domestically.

The cost of being in the EU is measurable as it's cash payments. The benefits apart from CAP payments and regeneration funds for deprived areas (yes, Cornwall and other UK areas do get these!) are harder to quantify, but there's certainly savings from not having to investigate issues and produce legislation in each country separately, and the resulting wellbeing improvements from say cleaner air, rights to information, heatlh and safety standards, widely understood standards of all sorts. And the argument for more money going to some of the poorer countries in the EU is that they will in due course get richer and we can then export more to them - it's an investment, just like the money we pay in international development to countries not in the EU - so it's plausible that those payments would continue even outside the EU!

Some of the EU institutions are bureaucratic but generally less so than people think and we're getting better at it. The difference between the EU, Council of Europe, European Courts of Justice and European Court of Human Rights would be good to get across and really should be taught in schools, but then that would need other aspects of government to be taught too, like the difference between civil and criminal courts, what local councillors and magistrates are, and so much else that I hope now is covered in PHSE classes.

NotCitrus .... my point on the EU trading block was that its more 'mature' than the others now emerging so the best could be behind us - and the 'costs' of doing business can be far better absorbed if a low tax government keeps its economy competitive with its help, rather than domestic big government (and big EU on top) hinderance.

You make some very good points but many seem to try justify staying in as if no alternative i.e. will our UK air be any dirtier outside the EU, or as the UK didn't pay for economies in Asia to get richer to buy our goods, why is it such a good idea to fund the poorer members of the EU to also become manufacturers etc in their own right, WITH cheap labour in situ to undercut us?

Our value added to the BRIC nations and similar, are exported products higher up the value chain than those they (mass) produce - until their wage rises put their costs on par with us, and manufacturing jobs will slowly come back to the UK - or whichever western countries are the most COMPETITIVE.

As to the red tape and bureaucracy within the EU, the former should always be under an ongoing review but isn't, and the YEAR the EU's accounts can finally be signed off by an Accountancy/Auditor as accurate, I'll stop worrying of the day we get another taxation 'double whammy' of an ineficent fat UK government and obese EU.

One of the strongly pro EU elephants in the room for predominantly socialist parties beating the drum for higher pay rates - is the effect of the open EU labour market of over 500 million citizens – in causing the compression of UK pay rates and even Productivity for the low paid, going back to 2004.

Can anyone argue that it is a coincidence that the year the UK not only opened its doors to Europe, but had the largest net inflow of workers within the EU - has not resulted in downward pressure on UK pay rates?

It seems an economic nonsense to me if those banging both the EU and low paid drum, not to see any relationship between the two – as the passing of time moved us on from basic supply/demand theory – thereby the tightening up of supply within our labour markets during the good times that DRIVES UP low-to-medium skilled pay rates, may never organically happen again when there is a constant new supply of labour.

Another nonsense is for those strongly pro EU politicians fighting the UK’s debt reduction as “austerity”, would as good Europeans, clearly be willing to accept the same instruction from the European Commission who have their own one-size-fits-all deficit rules.
www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/eu-gives-france-2017-cut-deficit-italy-belgium-clear-312421

Further to my earlier comments on this thread, over the past few days France and Germany have reiterated they want to step closer to an integrated federalism AND adopt a standard EU Corporation Tax stifling any competition that will only really benefit the larger countries/economies on the European mainland.

Increasingly for the UK, it would only make sense staying in if we aspired to economic (and political) mediocrity, where the best we can do is hang on to the EU's coat tails and make a living picking up what others on the mainland, surrounding by the EU political and financial power bases, didn't want.

Hi Isitme re your last point, about France and Germany setting the agenda, and Britian hanging onto their coat tails - that's what I as referring to upthread when I said Britian needs to be 'in it to win it'. We need to be at the heart of the EU, moving and shaking, creating strategic alliances and seting the agenda. We are a big fish in the EU. But unless we proactively engage with the debate in the EU, we are left watching from the sidelines as it goes in a direction we don't want. That's when we resent adhering to what France and Germany decide.

France and Germany are not natural allies - but they are both proactive in the EU. Germany would much rather have Britain on-side, but only if we are positive about the future of the EU. Not blatantly trying to screw the other member states for all we can get.

Isitme - the EU accounts being too inaccurate to sign off is a myth. Googling "EU accounts signed off myth" will get you loads of analysis from accross the political spectrum, but basically the EU aspires to a high level of accuracy for such a complex organisation, which it doesn't quite reach.

From ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm
"Myth For years now, the auditors refuse to sign off the EU accounts!

This is false. The European Court of Auditors gave a clean bill of health on our 2013 accounting books, for the seventh time in a row. This means every euro spent from the EU budget was duly recorded in the books and accounted for.

Where does the error rate the Court is constantly reporting come from?

When it comes to payments, the Court can confirm that the EU spending was in line with the rules only when the error rate is less than 2%. The Commission is working to move closer to this 2% threshold.

In the past years the Commission managed to keep the error rate under 5%. In other words, out of every 100 euro spent by the EU, at least 95 euro was free from error. While this is not enough to get the Court of Auditors' positive opinion, it does indicate the very high standard of management and control applied to taxpayers' money at EU level.

It is worth noting that the errors in EU spending are usually administrative mistakes, which are not fraud. According to Commission´s estimations only 0.2% of annual spending may be affected by fraud."

If any figures coming out of a UK government department were as accurate, I would be celebrating...

For anyone else wondering where the pro-EU lobby is, there are also these two organisations:

www.businessforneweurope.org/ and

www.euromove.org.uk/index.php?id=6330

But apparently there is going to be a big new organisation launched shortly which will be the main driver of the pro-EU lobby in the run up to the referendum.

Just as an aside - to slag off the government. What a waste of time and money this referendum is!!! I met someone back in 2001 who had a job as a project manager organising the admin for a potential referendum on Britain joining the Euro. He had a job for two or three years, he earned about £50k (15 years ago that was a lot of money). And he was part of a massive team who were hired specifically to work on the referendum admin. We never did have a referendum to join the Euro, but loads of money was evidently spent on the possibility that we might.

Why doesn't the government scrap the referendum - and give all that money to those poor people whose benefits they're cutting!!!!

Darcy(2105) ….. regarding your post before last beginning ”re your last point, about France and Germany setting the agenda,” despite history, you are still clearly over estimating the ability of one member, never mind a non Euro member, to change the self interests of ‘the collective’.

And as to the success of the Irish Republic and UK governments in attracting businesses to their shores, I’m reminded of an old Japanese proverb which goes something like; ‘the tallest nail always get hit first’.

Basically the Eurozone has talked about the ‘harmonisation’ of each member economies for many years, as they all have different systems i.e. taxation, accountancy, pensions etc etc etc.

And since the financial crash, the most senior federalists within have convinced themselves that closer integration not only still make sense, but may have limited the damage of the financial/economic crash.

Germany and France as the Founder members within the original six countries, as you say, are not (always) natural allies, but as they both have too much political capital invested (and Germany has a huge financial investment in the project, especially since the crash with various financial guarantees in place) – so they will ALWAYS do what is best for them.

Germany has for decades profited enormously from its trade with the rest of the EU and runs a huge trade surplus and as a heavily industrialised open market economy needs little EU help maintaining its global competitiveness, but others within ‘the collective’ do;

Dec 2014; Germany, France and Italy urge EU to write common corporate tax laws
www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/01/us-eurozone-tax-letter-idUSKCN0JF2WN20141201

”The German, French and Italian finance ministers have urged the European Commission to draw up EU-wide laws to curb corporate tax avoidance and prevent member states from offering lower taxes to attract investors.”

So as there are so many OTHER economic systems that need to be harmonized, one has to wonder why Germany and France this week are bringing up Corporation Tax rates again.

Could it be that the tallest economic nail is in a town near them this week requesting EU changes and this is how the largest horse trading market works, if you want something, you have to give something, until all nations are a competitive gloop, benefiting those largest members that have invested so heavily over the years?

In the UK our industry and banking sector was built around its natural resources, transport, expertise and power bases, and where will the main EU market of (the other) 440 million citizens, its Parliament, its Commissions, and central bank be – over the Channel, and although there is nothing we can do about that, we HAVE to know that other senior members will have our interest at heart, as they certainly don’t at the moment.

NotCitrus ….. Re EU Accounts.... in the interests of full, honest, disclosure within the debate, I will concede that I was indeed just regurgitating old arguments I heard years ago (without further research) and so willing to accept for now, ‘that every Euro is accounted for’.

Moreover I take on board your comparative reference to the UK’s expenditure and I would like to expand on that.

Generally speaking, history shows that with governance, especially ‘social’ governance, citizens should never under estimate its ability to excessively grow and justify itself, no matter WHAT the cost.

I would ask the question if the last Labour government could justify all of the over 1 million new public sector jobs it created from 1997 to 2010, which included many new ‘non jobs’ with dubious titles and government quangos - but as there were no attempts I can see to cut those numbers by April 2010 when several hundred thousand tax paying private sector jobs supporting them had gone, and our annual deficit was £157 billion, - one has to assume that they could (justify their growth).

And there lies my general argument of broadly socialist run government over an extended period of time with no upper limit; it is not only taxpayer expensive, uses too much time and energy reorganising itself (and the outside private sector via regulation and red tape), the need for a ‘top down’ reorganisation SERIOUSLY rationalising itself, just never occurs to them.

I'm pro-European and one of the main reasons I did not vote for the Conservatives in the recent election. I think Cameron is playing a dangerous game.

I can now only hope that there is a good debate where the pro camp and also put forward their case instead the usual immigration scare stories and 'waste of money' claptrap peddled by the right wing press.

Immigration has been a net benefit to the country. Virtually every study has shown that. But the papers peddle the scare stories every day of Pawel & Piotr coming to steal our jobs and benefits.

And of course how the EU is wasting billions of our cash. Erm hold on. It's not like our own UK government is ruthlessly efficient and transparent is it? And the simple fact is our net contribution to the EU budget is tiny in relation to our overall spend. It's like earning £2000 a month, spending £3000 a month then blaming your home insurance policy of £20 a month for all your financial troubles. Clearly something else is wrong.

I like having our human rights protected. I like being able to work in any EU country if I wanted to and I like being able to travel to them all too without having to apply for a visa.

There are a lot of positives but even then the facts get twisted. A few weeks ago Mark Carney said immigration hadn't had a big effect on our economy and that was twisted in the Daily Mail to say that he'd said immigration had.

The recent discussions on having agreed ranges for EU corporation tax was twisted again to imply EU meddling when in reality it would hit the EU countries who have been taking the piss like Luxembourg who have sweetheart deals with the likes of Amazon & Starbucks to pay near 0% corporation tax. For the rest of us it'd be business as usual.

Wow, I've banged on a bit. In short I think on balance the EU is a good thing. I just hope we can have a fair & balanced debate.