EU referendum are you in or out

[gravy]

What pick and choose? "Follow EU rules or bugger off" is the ibest trade deal we will get. It might be worse.

Britain is on a good deal. it gets to pick and choose which EU policies it takes on board anyway, so nothing wrong with being in.

I'm just responding to statements made. Indeed, it surely must be a question of all-in or leave the table. But then why aren't the pro-EU crowd committed and focused on being part of a homogenised Europe?

Cos that position is hugely unpopular and would mean more no votes. You're confusing a marketing drive for this Friday with policy.

[gumboot]

The UK does a shit job of its picking and choosing. "Because Brussels" is second only to "Because Health and Safety" when it comes to shit British answers to why something is "impossible".

[venusian]

The UK does a shit job of its picking and choosing. "Because Brussels" is second only to "Because Health and Safety" when it comes to shit British answers to why something is "impossible".

And most of the time both of those answers are utterly fatuous and bear little relation to the real reason.

[tufty]

EU subsidies keep many of our farms going. Leaving means a huge hole in the finance of farms, with no commitment from Leave to match what the EU spends.

The UK is a net contributor.

Absolutely the UK is a net contributor, and nobody is claiming otherwise. The point, which was explicitly mentioned but seems to have slipped past you, despite you having quoted it, is that there's no commitment to match the 4.5 billion the EU grant to farmers, the 1.8 billion that goes to research, the x billion that goes to poorer areas of the country, etc etc. So the pro exit lot are saying "we'll be rich!", but not mentioning that a lot of the 13 billion they're counting on must be considered, effectively, already spent

Even the full 13 billion is a mere drop in the ocean. As it stands, it's not big enough to get it's own line in the budget, it's wrapped up under "other".

Smoke and mirrors, man. Smoke and mirrors. Even getting the full 13 billion and fuck the farmers / regions / whatever is only going to result in tax cuts of the order of a couple of pence in the pound, probably less because "we're all in it together" so the money will go to the rich.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Why does the EU provide subsidies to UK farmers? What's in it for 'them'?

[gumboot]

Something about ensuring that the EU always has the capacity to feed the EU even when maintaining such isn't completely economically viable, isn't it? I don't know. I learned it when I was a kid then promptly forgot.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Food security is important, but UK production can't be all that plush and unique. Other parts of Europe can be farmed as well.
If the UK's production was significantly fantastic (and important) then it wouldn't need subsidising and would be a massive bargaining chip for trade with other EU members.

I knew there were farming subsidies but am a little shocked to learn it's coming from the EU rather than government. I thought the EU was about freeing up trade within Europe. So its not only is it a protectionist trade bloc to rest of the world but also controls trade within its members with subsidies, tariffs, and/or quotas?

[tufty]

Food security is important, but UK production can't be all that plush and unique. Other parts of Europe can be farmed as well.

It's part of the Common Agricultural Policy, which was originally introduced as part of the Treaty of Rome to ensure that enough basic agricultural commodities were produced across the Common Market. It's since been significantly changed, and is now much less production-oriented. Subsidies are handed out to farmers across Europe. The main idea is that it should "level the playing field" and stop a farmer in one place starving whilst the farmer just over the border is living it pretty on fat government handouts. Obviously, it doesn't work entirely like that, it's massively flawed in many ways, but that's pretty much the idea.

[Rhythm]

The UK does a shit job of its picking and choosing. "Because Brussels" is second only to "Because Health and Safety" when it comes to shit British answers to why something is "impossible".

The Health and Safety Executive's Mythbuster page is a fantastic library of (usually inept/lazy) businesses and their views of "elf n safety, mate"

[venusian]

The CAP is also used to try and influence environmental behaviour, and also inadvertently influences environmental behaviour.

[gumboot]

The UK does a shit job of its picking and choosing. "Because Brussels" is second only to "Because Health and Safety" when it comes to shit British answers to why something is "impossible".

And most of the time both of those answers are utterly fatuous and bear little relation to the real reason.

Yeah, but there certainly are laws that start in Brussels but then it's up to each state to decide how to implement and enforce them. The UK makes shit decisions, there, and consequently the reason certain things are illegal is not because Brussels said so, but because the option was on the table and the UK said so.

I'm thinking particularly of EUCD, where the UK declined to take the provisions allowing for fair use, etc., thereby making pretty much all reasonable use of copyright material illegal. It happens in other areas, too.

[gumboot]

So its not only is it a protectionist trade bloc to rest of the world but also controls trade within its members with subsidies, tariffs, and/or quotas?

You seem pretty hung up on that. Can you identify anywhere that doesn't behave in a similar way? Certainly New Zealand has the same sort of protectionism, limited only by the self-defeating, asymmetric trade agreements it makes with specific countries.

[gumboot]

CAP lead to higher food bills, as do EU tariffs. (Which also hurt Africa.)

What's this Africa thing, by the way? I thought somebody else might address it but everybody seems too sensible and properly informed, so it's down to me.

I'd heard one like this before, but it was about how Africans were 'literally starving' because they couldn't get anybody to take their food away in exchange for nutritious cash (American-installed, environmentally-inappropriate, GMO food, I suspect).

[Little stoned kiwi]

So its not only is it a protectionist trade bloc to rest of the world but also controls trade within its members with subsidies, tariffs, and/or quotas?

You seem pretty hung up on that. Can you identify anywhere that doesn't behave in a similar way? Certainly New Zealand has the same sort of protectionism, limited only by the self-defeating, asymmetric trade agreements it makes with specific countries.

I thought the EU was a trade bloc to encourage trade between members. A system of subsidies and tariffs doesn't encourage member nations to do what they are best at to service the entire EU: such as how the EU is subsidising the UK's food production. Which doesn't make sense for the Union as a whole, and doesn't make sense for the UK who have become dependent on the EU not to disrupt your local supply chain.

[venusian]

The EU subsidises all farmers all over the EU, not just the UK. It subsidises all sorts of industries in all sorts of places, particularly relatively deprived areas, to encourage development. It does what governmental organisations all over the world do.