Mr Bigot was very brave.
And Mr Bigot was not like any other politician. Oh no. He was quite different.
He was going about his normal business – drinking beer, smoking cigarettes, persuading people to be afraid of immigrants – when he heard some interesting news.
A politician – and ordinary one, not anything like him at all – had been forced to resign. Apparently he had taken cash for questions. Dreadful. Nobody in Mr Bigot’s party would ever have done such a thing. Especially not that nice, honest Mr Hamilton, who helped Mr Bigot so much to make sure his party didn’t have even a whiff of corruption.
But that meant that there would be an election. A chance to become an MP. A real one, not a fake, European one. Mr Bigot was a fake, European MEP, but only to protest about Europe. He only took the money and all the expenses to make a point. Not because he liked riding the gravy train, like all those ordinary politicians. Oh no. Because Mr Bigot was not like all those other politicians.
Some of Mr Bigot’s supporters went to Mr Bigot and said ‘why don’t you run?’
Mr Bigot felt something strange, something he didn’t recognise. A little quiver about his heart, and some colour around his face. Perhaps that last beer had been a mistake.
No matter. Mr Bigot was brave. He laughed. ‘If I won, that Mr Cameron would have to resign’, he told the friendly man from the BBC. Men from the BBC generally were very friendly to Mr Bigot. He liked them.
Then, however, he started to think. He remembered what ordinary politicians would do. An ordinary politician would have checked with a focus group. Despicable. Mr Bigot wouldn’t do anything like that. Instead, he commissioned some polling reports. Nothing like a focus group at all. Oh no.
The polling reports weren’t very positive. It would be difficult. It would be challenging.
But Mr Bigot was brave. Yes, he was brave. And he was not like ordinary politicians. But he began to feel a bit strange. That colour in his face began to spread. His heart began to beat a little faster.
And then Mr Bigot heard whispers that another man, Mr Blond, was considering running. Mr Blond was a bit scary to ordinary politicians. He could joke almost as well as Mr Bigot. The media liked him almost as much as they liked Mr Bigot. Not as much, of course, because they didn’t like anyone as much as they liked Mr Bigot. But Mr Bigot began to wonder whether it might not be such a good idea to run. Even though he was brave.
And Mr Bigot remembered how nice it was to be a fake, European MEP. How nice the salary was. How nice it was to have expenses that didn’t have to be accounted for. How nice to be able to employ his wife. Being a real MP wasn’t so exciting.
And then Mr Bigot began to think about what would happen if he lost.
If he lost.
People might think badly about him. People might not think he was the best thing in politics. His bubble might burst.
If he lost.
If he lost.
So Mr Bigot decided not to run. He decided to run away.
Now an ordinary politician would have gone to his spin doctor – probably someone from a sleazy tabloid – to find a way to make his running away seem like something other than what it was. Running away.
But Mr Bigot was nothing like that. He didn’t have a spin doctor from a sleazy tabloid – he had his Director of Communications, who used to work for that quality newspaper the Express.
So Mr Bigot told his Director of Communications to come up with a story. And he did. Mr Bigot said that he had ‘no connection with the area’ – and nobody in the media seemed to notice that this didn’t quite fit with Mr Bigot’s earlier suggestions that he was the only person who represented ordinary English people. Like the people in this area.
But that didn’t matter. Oh no. Because few people ever asked Mr Bigot difficult questions. And nobody seemed to notice that Mr Bigot had changed colour a little. Or that he had run away….
Art by @KaiserOfCrisps, words by me….
Paul Bernal's Blog 
Reblogged this on sdbast.
What is bigoted about wanting what is best for you nation, maybe you could next do drawings of every member of the armed forces who fight for our country in a different way, and the people who deploy them for that purpose as well Maybe you could do one of barrosso as well as he is the man running the racist eussr which is anti the whole world other than the protectionist 28 nations.
Nothing’s bigoted about wanting the best for your nation. What’s bigoted is the choice of immigrants as the people to blame when they’re not to blame. What’s bigoted is to believe and repeat stories like ‘benefit tourism’ and ‘health tourism’ that are demonstrably false. What’s bigoted is to oppose marriage equality….
….and we still want to hear your definition of ‘eussr’…. if it’s trying to equate the EU with the USSR it suggests either you know very little about the EU or you know very little about the USSR. Or both.
Well it seems I know a lot more about it than you do Paul, you don’t even realise that there the benefit tourism is a huge drain on our resources.
And there the bigotry bites, making it impossible for you too see the reality. Even the BBC, generally leaning in your direction, acknowledge there’s very little indeed.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25127344
That’s the point. Report after report – neutral reports – show the same thing. You don’t want to see it…
The BBC is the governments propaganda machine, it’s the bigotry of the lovers of the unelected brussels government with its racist protectionist policies that should annoy you, or is it OK to discriminate in favour of 28 basically white nations and against the rest of the world where there is a large proportion of Black Asian and Yellow peoples, which is what the eussr policies do.
And there we have it again. Proper academic study reveals that the BBC actually has a Euro-sceptic leaning. But that’s how this sort of thing works. You dismiss evidence that doesn’t suit your ‘world vision’. That’s how bigotry develops.
See here, for example:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-accused-ofpolitical-bias–on-the-right-not-the-left-9129639.html
I’m not suggesting even that this is significant – merely that it means that instant dismissal of a story just because it comes from the BBC is a mistake…
Well Paul I had direct input with the BBC on the Stafford Hospital story, and along with others we pointed out the true facts, which had not been presented ever by the BBC, and indeed still haven’t, for an hour we informed the reporter of the evidence that no one ever drank from a flower vase, they had actually all been removed from the wards more than 10 years before the alleged incident, we also explained how the death rate figures had been improperly used, something highlighted by Francis, and yet when the, edited to suit the BBC’s political stance, report came out we had the tired Scandal hit mid staffs to begin with, although the evidence that Stafford is ranked at number 17 in the country, well above the vast majority, and the so called scandal is nearly 10 years old. The Myth of the flower vases and the grossly exaggerated death rates were again reported as the “facts”. Do I believe what the BBC news reports say, no, and with good reason I have seen up close and personal how they follow their politically biased agenda.
Of course the BBC is a media organisation, and behaves as media organisations do – but that’s missing the point pretty fundamentally here. The point is on benefits tourism… but sadly this is the standard approach when a message isn’t liked: shoot the messenger. Classical avoidance tactics. If I’d quoted the Guardian or the Independent you’d have said ‘lefty media’, if I’d quoted the Times or the Telegraph you’d have said ‘They’ve got an axe to grind against UKIP’…and if I’d quoted official EU statistics you might have exploded!
In the end it doesn’t matter. You’ll believe what you choose to believe, discount evidence that doesn’t match the vision, and convince yourself you’re right. That’s how bigotry works, and why people caught up in it never notice that it’s happening. You won’t now.
No Paul the BBC should be reporting facts not propaganda, it is a publicly funded body and as such it should not be trying to lead public opinion, but be even handed in its reporting. People believe what they see and hear on the media, very few bother to look further and find out for themselves, hence you get people who think that UKIP and the BNP are the same thing, and call UKIP racists, and misogynists which is something the other parties with the aid of the media continue to use as a smear tactic, although this is far from reality. You get every little transgression by a UKIP member on the national news, but far greater transgressions by members of other parties going no further than the inside pages of local papers, this has backfired on the anti UKIP media however because what it has done is get people to look at UKIP and realises that they are being lied about which is why the membership is growing whilst the old parties are losing members. The instant belief that the BBC is being honest in its reporting is not the best approach.
….as I said. It’s not about the BBC. But believe what you like. I know you will. That’s how it works! 🙂
No Paul it isn’t only the BBC, although its news service is probably seen by far more people than read any particular paper it is about all media, and unfortunately these days it seems a lot of reporters, I won’t use the term journalist, cut and paste stories rather than investigation and checking references, which leads to a misleading of the public and creates general misconceptions, that lead to an individual being smeared as being a bigot for example.
….and? You’re still going along on the same line. Still taking pot shots at the messenger(s), avoiding the message.
It is simple Paul who delivers the biased message, and in this case is the author of the message, that is the messenger, so I can’t address the message without reference to the media in which the message is delivered. This is why people take pot shots at Farage and make claims that he is a bigot for example because they have been mislead and believed the message being provided by the messenger.
Yup. Keep on shooting! That messenger isn’t quite dead yet!
Neither is the bigoted message the messenger has in his hand. maybe if the messenger stopped trying to protect the message and moved out of the danger area he wouldn’t get shot.
I’m afraid you still haven’t even wounded him.
No some people seem to have a protective aura around them so that no matter what they come up smelling of rose fertiliser but some people find it difficult to smell as their nasal passages are blocked so the receptor nerves are not employed.
Now you seem to be verging on paranoia, in the same way that you were when accusing me of sock-puppetry. I’d advise coffee. Strong.
This is your blog and you posted the bigoted message, maybe you could balance it out by posting mr liar, camoron mr misguided, Clegg, Mr fraternicide millipede or would that not be in line with your anti UKIP message, you could also perhaps refer to their fascist policies which are anti anyone needy, such as the obvious “for hardworking people” mantra which by definition excludes the people unable to work, Cleggs racism of claiming his policy of keeping us under the control of the eussr is for “British Jobs”, or millipedes well err what is it he stands for exactly?
Perhaps you should take a closer look at my blog!! I’ve a whole series on ‘Mr Gove’, plus ‘Mr Quiet’ on that lovely man Iain Duncan Smith. I do indeed have one on Mr Clegg planned – it will be ‘Little Mr Clegg’ – though I have to admit his pro-EU message is not likely to be the main focus. His regular access of gravy trains will be, however.
Having said that, this IS my blog, and my politics are far from hidden. Why should I balance things I believe in with things that I don’t?
Well that explains you fear of UKIP then. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Article/Page/en/LIVE?id=19668&page=PressReleases you may find this interesting, although I am the first to take polls with a pinch os salt they can show trends, and it seems that the Germans are not averse to what UKIP stands for although they are the nation that is arguably the most europhile.
Don’t worry, I don’t deny that UKIP is popular – or that xenophobia, bigotry or scaremongering is popular. It is! Electorally it often works to appeal to peoples fear and their worst instincts. It’s ‘natural’ to try to find someone to blame – but that doesn’t mean it’s right. I’d be fighting xenophobia even if I was in a minority of one….
I do not consider wanting to be able to govern your own nation to be xenophobic, are you also accusing the SNP, and to a lesser extent Plaid Cymru of xenophobia? Wanting to have control of your own borders, is not anti immigration, and after all it is widespread throughout the world to vet who is allowed in, and whether they can stay without having to ask foreign judges in a foreign country if you can deport terrorists from your own nation. Calling someone a bigot is bigoted, and those trying to use this form of attack need to look closely at their own message. The scaremongering of people like Clegg claiming that it would cost 3 million jobs if Britain regained its independence, along with his anti british xenophobic stance that only foreigners work because the British are idle and won’t are indeed dreadful positions to take. The freedom of movement for the mainly white 28 nations whilst peoples from the largely non white nations not within it is institutionalised racism, and has has a detrimental effect on the NHS as Indian Doctors and Phillipino nurses of a high standard are actively discouraged, whilst anyone from a part of europe can come here. Having said that of course their is a growing number of Poles in particular, and members of all ethnic groups, in the numbers of UKIP membership, who do not think there is any bigoted racist xenophobic or homophobic basis in what UKIP is and what it stands for, the media may think that I certainly can comment.
….and we’re back to the beginning again. I would refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today. Time for more coffee, I think! 🙂
It seems that I have to accept some people are beyond redemption, Nurse 200 mgs of chlorpromazine IM stat.
Oh God, not Barry again
Mr Bigot has run away… but Barry hasn’t!
Strange I thought the racist europhiles were still here.
Usual UKIP line regarding migration. Why no mention of controlling migration from the rest of the world which we can reduce relatively easily. One hardly needs Australians bartenders in an Australian bar, for instance.
When Sir Paul Condon was challenged a few years back why Metrpoloitan Police officers werte ‘persecuting innocent’ drivers for ‘minor’ offences rather than hunting down illegal immigrants. He said fine, I will start by going after those who are still working here after their work permits have expired.
The first largest group of offenders at the time were US citizens and the second were Australians. The conversation changed direction when Sir Paul made that point.
How do I know it happened? One of the diners told the Daily Mail and they spun the story against Sir Paul.
Would it be cynical of me to observe that US citizens and Australians are people like us, according to UKIP, unlike our nearest neighbours?
Well it’s really simple why there is no mention of controlling immigration from the rest of the world, we haven’t had freedom of movement imposed onto us by an unelected committee in brusselss so we do have some control over them although the racist protectionist policies of the eussr means we can no longer employ the Indian Doctors and phillipino nurses that would be good for the NHS because of immigration laws imposed by brussells. UKIP is not was not and never will be anti immigration no matter how much anti UKIP members of the old parties try to make that out. UKIP wants control of our borders, which isn’t the complete closure that the knuckle draggers would have you believe, but is in line with what happens in countries throughout the world, in fact if you look at the current immigration situation logically it is a godsend for organised crime because there is no means of checking who is coming from where within the bloc. Yes it would not only be cynical, but racist of you to make that comment about Australians, and American who have sensible immigration regulations BTW, because you are putting your own racism forewords as being UKIP policy. Sir Paul wouldn’t have been able to find anything against 27 nations that couldn’t be classified as illegal immigrants, no matter what they were doing, and 27 nations citizens that can’t be deported after being found guilty of criminal activities either. So exactly what other than airing your irrational hatred of a party you clearly know nothing about is the point of your post.
I do admire your persistence….
Well I have never liked liars, so when I see something I know to be a lie I do my utmost to get the truth out there, and show the liar for what they really are, also I take exception at being called a racist when I am far from being one solely for cheap political reasons. I’m not against immigration, just the uncontrolled immigration.
Sorry, who are you calling a liar?
Everyone who posts lies basically. Such as people who claim that UKIP is anti immigration and call them racists, it isn’t and we aren’t. People who say we are xenophobic, we aren’t scared of other races, we have plenty of different ethnicities in the party membership. People who have seen the truth but carry on spreading lies much as the BBC does, because once it has reported it, no matter what evidence it has it continues to say the same lie over and over because it does not have the guts to admit it was wrong, or media that splash sensational stories over the front page then apologise in small writing on the bottom of page 5, or politicians who fiddle the books and thing a mumbled 30 second apology will make it alright.
Sounds like you want to accuse anyone you disagree with of being a liar… Incidentally, my specific accusation was that the poster with the pointing finger was xenophobic, and as it was clearly intended to make people afraid that foreigners were coming over here to take their jobs, that xenophobia is pretty apparent. Whether using xenophobic advertising makes a party itself xenophobic is another matter….
P.S. Suggesting an opinion is a lie is dodgy to say the least.
P.S. From an interview with Nigel Farage:
“Should British people be wary of Romanian families moving into their street? “Well, of course, yeah.”
That, specifically, is saying British people should be afraid of Romanians. By definition, xenophobic. That’s what xenophobia means.
So Nigel Farage was being xenophobic. Does that mean UKIP is xenophobic? It depends whether UKIP can be judged by its leader’s statements. Personally I think it would be fair to make such a judgment – the leader of a party does represent it.
The interview can be found here:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/25/nigel-farage-ukip-european-parliament-elections
Not at all Paul just those like camoron who openly and knowing lie as part of getting what they want or persuading people to believe something for their own benefit, to the detriment of others. For example I respect Andy Burnham , but not Jeremy Hunt because the latter has lied about the former, I might not agree with everything Burnham stands for but so far I have no reason to disbelieve what he says.
Well Paul you have to see the whole of the interview to be able to make valid comments on a sentence or two. “Nigel Farage hasn’t changed a bit, and yet everything is different. He suggests we meet in a village in Stockton-on-Tees for a “lovely pub lunch”, which turns out to consist of three pints of ale, lots of cigarettes, and no food whatsoever”. An easy that begins in this format is hardly likely to be balanced, and as I’m sure you are as well aware as I am Journalists don’t always, if ever, post stories that are exactly what was said and in what context. If you have ever watched Babylon % there is an episode in that which shows the way stuff is altered by using different questions for truncated answers which gives an opposite view of what was said. I have seen this in action with the bbc reporters about Stafford hospital, believe me drop the dead Donkey was a valid interpretation of todays journalism.
Surprisingly enough, I have read the whole interview, and Farage does come across as a likeable, affable man – but also as a xenophobe. His attitudes to Romania and Romanians are precisely xenophobic – and if you can’t see that, or can’t face acknowledging it, then you really are trying to avoid it. If, on the other hand, you think it’s OK to have attitudes like that, then you’re being xenophobic yourself. I’m not sure which it is. Perhaps you think it’s OK to be xenophobic – that’s entirely your prerogative, but if you do, you can’t then claim outrage at UKIP being accused of xenophobia.
No I don’t fear foreigners which is what xenophobic actually means as I’m sure you are aware, to call someone married to a German a xenophobe and racist is also quite odd and yet the media do. UKIP has members who are not all english white male and middle class, despite the image the mass media tries to portray and political activists continue to peddle. I don’t however agree with unfettered immigration, which is actually skewed towards white people, as they are the majority in the 28 nations, and against the rest of the world, as I believe, like the majority of the people of the world, that a nation should have control over its own borders, which is what happens throughout the world even in America which at one time opened its doors to everyone. There is a major difference between being anti immigration and pro controlled immigration which of course is what we do for everyone that isn’t from the eussr, and that protectionist policy from brussells is where you can claim that the British nation, or at least the current political class in westminster, is racist because it accepted that policy being imposed on to it.
Again, you do very well to obfuscate and avoid the issue. You keep trying to steer towards your own particular take on immigration: that’s not the issue here. Xenophobia is, as manifested in the attitude towards Romanians in particular. I know it’s hard to face, but Nigel Farage’s attitude to Romania and Romanians is archetypal xenophobia. If you think that attitude is OK (exemplified by his saying it’s OK to not want a Romanian to live on your street) then you think xenophobia is OK.
So, simple question: do you think that attitude to Romanians is OK?
No, I don’t think any racism is appropriate, and that is in line with the vast majority of people in this country, there are those of every political ilk that will say stupid things and there are those that will take the slightest thing as being racist, I can’t do anything about that, I actually live next door to a Romanian couple who have been here since before the day the doors were officially opened, I’m not going to try to extrapolate from how I find them to every single immigrant though which seems to be the general attitude with some people.
Good – so you agree that Nigel Farage is xenophobic. That’s a start. 🙂
Except that Nigel Farage who has a German wife is not scared of foreigners, in fact you should see him when he is having a go at them in brussells, scared I think not.
Ah, you got so close to admitting the truth. Never mind, even if that was a little bit like ‘some of my best friends are black’, I’m in too good a mood to argue.
You still haven’t explained your bigoted fear of foreigners claims, and as usual have tried to slew what a actually said in a different direction
Of course I have – with the precise example of Romania. Still, if you don’t want to see it you won’t. I still recommend coffee! Actually, Romanian coffee is particularly good. 😉
Been there done that now why do you think that people have a fear of foreigners because they would prefer their country to be run on behalf off the people of the country who are elected to do the job, than than an unelected bunch of failed politicians who meet outside of the country. It seems that the euroracists just try to use any word that comes to mind which they think will make them sound clever, and deflect from their bigoted racist opinions.
All I am saying is, if you are concerned about people coming over here and taking our jobs then your proposed controls should be even handed.
Our need to fill places with people from abroad, which is known as poaching, results from UK plc not spending enough money on training , learning and development in the workplace. Curiously, a policy UKIP favours within the NHS. Such a policy of recruiting from abroad harms the UK economy and deprives taxpayers and businesses in developing countries from obtaining a full return on their investment in their own people. They, thereby, lose people essential for the well being of their societies and economies, increasing their need for foreign aid.
UKIP wants to have it both ways, it seems, screwing developing countries and deny them aid they seek as a result of them being screwed. And, of course, it likes to whine on about high unemployment.
And then there is the matter of skill shortages in the construction industry …
UKIPs immigration policy is even handed, it allows people from throughout the world to come here not the protectionist racist policy of the eussr. It isn’t about people taking our jobs, after all there are qualified people from the eussr doing jobs that they are not using their qualifications to do which mens that not only are the lower or unqualified people in this country being pushed out of the job market, and are then demonised by the media and the government, but the countries where the immigrants gained their qualifications are losing their skilled workers which cost them to train in the first place, it’s a lose lose situation for everyone inclusive of the people who are earning more, but not achieving the job satisfaction they would have doing the job they are qualified and one would expect want to do. We have a skill shortage in the health service because it is harder for Indian Doctors, highly trained and qualified to come here than european Doctors, and we are short of nurses because it is harder for Phillipino nurses to come here than european ones, UKIP policy would address these racist eussr policies so that we could get the people we need and not the ones we don’t, like the international criminals with free roaming rights the health and welfare tourists, just as they do throughout the world. Long term unemployment has actually soared over the last 8 years in Britain, from 660,000 in 2007 to 1,244,000 in 2013, and is growing not fallen despite the sanctions and zero hours contracts. The matter of skill shortages in the construction industry is down to the reduction in construction in the country and the workers going to where the jobs are, it isn’t a new phenomenon major construction such as bridges etc have always had a nomadic life style, the easy answer would be that if we hadn’t closed the technical colleges or allied them to transition to universities there would still be the training available, I suppose you will find a way to blame UKIP for something that happened prior to it coming into existence though.
“unemployment has actually soared over the last 8 years in Britain, from 660,000 in 2007 to 1,244,000 in 2013” Nice cherry picking of data there. Not at all the trait of a “liar” like those you accuse
I said long term which is the group that most politicians use so it must be important, it’s not cherry picking it is a fact of which we should be ashamed, but then I’m not a fascist who thinks this group should be allowed to die with sweeping benefit cuts being employed, so that the government can claim they have reduced the number of unemployed.
UKIP wants to scrap the Social Chapter and withdraw from the ECHR. Neither policy would be in the interest of anyone working in the UK.
UKIP wants to ‘relax’ labour laws in order to allow employers to better exploit their workforces, resulting in more, not less insecure employment. Under UKIP we would see fewer rights for employees and greater opportunities to make use of zero hours contracts. UKIP wants to crack down even harder on people on social security (than the Tories do now) so we may expect more stigmatising and sanctions targeted on the poor, if UKIP ever formed a government.
On the other hand, UKIP is the party of the City. It appears, according to UKIP that the City can do no wrong and did not damage our economy in 2008 to the point where it caused most, if not all of the rise in unemployment that you cite.
UK unemployment was 1,620,496 (4.4%) in May 1997 when Labour came into power and it reached a low of 831,851 (2.1%) in May 2008. By May 2009, the credit crunch had taken hold and unemployment rose to 1,564,978 (3.9%). Unemployment then began to fall and in May 2010 it was down to 1,502,155 (3.7%). In May 2011 it stood at 1,504,913 (3.7%); in May 2012 1,590,708 (3.9%); in May 2013 1,495,758 (3.7%) and In March 2014 it was down to 1,196,269 (2.9%).
Whether we like it or not, zero hours contract jobs are jobs, despite being poorly paid and very insecure. Sanctions are unlikely to be having a major effect on unemployment levels as, if you appeal against a sanction you do need to sign on to avoid complications should you win your appeal. Cease signing and you will need to prove, to the satisfaction of DWP that you have been looking for work in the interim as well as make a new claim for JSA. Only if you sign off and stay off the register will you cease to be counted in the monthly claimant figures. In addition, people who have been sanctioned and cease claiming JSA will still be counted in the wider defintion of worklessness that forms part of the Labour Force Survey.
Assuming that the number of people claiming JSA for over twelve months count as the long term unemployed then the figure was 586,485 (1.6%) in May 1997; reached a low of 103,825 (0.3%) in May 2008; then rose to 129,460 (0.3%) in May 2009; 265,430 (0.7%) in May 2010; fell to 217,330 (0.5%) in May 2011; then rose to 394,005 (1.0%) in May 2012 and 428,865 (1.0%). The number has now fallen to 350,415 (0.9%) in March 2014.
Wow can I borrow your Crystal ball so I can see what is going to be in the manifesto for the 2015 lection campaign because it hasn’t been written yet, maybe I could take a peek at what the next destructive policies from the conlablibdum party and the greens are going to be as well.
The Social charter is actually having a bigger detrimental effect on the people at the bottom of the pile than those at the top, and the echr is something the old parties have said they will leave or suspend membership when it makes ridiculous decisions which prevent us from deporting serious criminals and people preaching hatred against our country.
The current situation allows employers to exploit their workers and is due to regulation from the eussr. Your idea that UKIP would crack down harder on the most vulnerable than the coalition with support from labour is based on what exactly? another look into your crystal ball perhaps?
UKIP is not part of the City, if it was it would be getting the sort of financial help that the tories get from the city, another one of your smear campaign tactics.
Long term unemployment has risen from 600,000 in 2008 to 1.24 million now The numbers of people being taken off benefits or sanctioned from JSA is immense and the figures are skewed as these needy people are being left with no income no job no support but the government claims they are working. The jsa figures are not valid.
All I have done is distil policy as set out in hard copies of UKIP News, UKIP News Online, policy announcements by, amongst others, Nigel Farage as well as UKIP’s local and EU poll manifestos.
As an aside why is UKIP waiting until the day after this month’s elections to set out its main manifesto? Is UKIP worried that setting out its policies, in detail, might put people off voting for it the day before?
UKIP members and candidates regularly go on about social security skivers, takers etc,
How does the Social Chapter, the Working Time Directive, right to paid holidays, good terms and conditions, maternity and paternity leave etc make things worse for those on low pay? Nigel Farage has been saying since the start of this year that he wants to remove such ‘burdens’ on business.
ECHR was drawn up by the UK and signed by it, along with five other countries in London in 1950. It underpins equal opportunities legislation in the UK as well as ‘minor’ rights such as the right to a fair trial.
A number of UKIP’s major funders are drawn from the City which. as you rightly observe puts them in the same league as the Tory Party. UKIP backs the City by denying the fact that it’s reckless behaviour led to the credit crunch of 2008. UKIP feels that City bankers need coddling, not holding to account for their behaviour over the last two decades or so.
Form whence do your draw your figures? The JSA claimant count is one audited measure of unemployment, but not the only one. People who have been sanctioned, but continue to sign on remain on the JSA claimant count.
JSA claimants receive around 3% of the total social security budget so, for accountancy purposes alone, the count is a valid measure.
No John you haven’t only distilled ukip policies you have used fabrications from non UKIP sources. I take it that the tory party, “for hardworking people” the lib dums “leaving the eussr will cost us 3 million jobs” labour “we need to change the benefit culture” are all actually saying they think the unemployed needy sick disabled are worthwhile members of society, no they are not that are going along the same policy of hitting the most vulnerable the hardest, not only because this group are not able to work, but because it gets votes from bigots in every party who think that the benefit street propaganda is reality television.
We had paid leave well before we were dumped into what we were lied to as being a trade agreement, why is it that europhiles think we all worked 52 weeks of the year before our foreign neighbours made us see the light? In fact most of our Social polices were better for the people before edicts from brussells diluted them, maternity and paternity leave have nothing whatsoever to do with brussells.
The working time directive has had a severe adverse effect on the health service and the training of Doctors, and those people whose income is not high to begin with are being denied the opportunity to increase their incomes when needed, in fact the removal of the ability to work overtime has cost jobs because it has lead to companies going broke, just another unforeseen casualty of the ill considered over regulation from brussells.
We had the right to a fair trial well before 1950, in fact the ehcr is seen as a problem by all parties as it has ballooned out of control and is not seen as an even handed court any longer.
How can you say UKIP coddles the city any more than labour or the greens or libdums do? After all thanks to previous and indeed the present government the nation does need the city to be successful although as we have seen the eussr is doing its hardest to damage it.
It is a fact that if you are sanctioned or your esa has time expired, and you can only sign on for Jsa if you are actually fit for work that the numbers of unemployed drop, the government claim these people are working to pretend the problem isn’t worsening.
Now let me turn my attention to the recruitment and retention problems besetting the NHS. The NHS faces three inter-related problems; an aging workforce, under investment in learning and development and staff leaving to work in the private sector elsewhere in the world.
I attended a meeting a few years back with NHS recruitment professionals who were facing a demographic timebomb. They had calculated that, if staff retired at the first available age to collect their pensions then they would need to recruit 50% of all school leavers just to stand still. The place where we held the meeting still houses projects designed to help people re-enter the health sector, change career to work in the health sector and take the first steps into employment in the health sector. The target groups being older people, including men and lone parents.
Better pay, terms and conditions would help with recruitment and retention. In particular, voluntary flexible age of retirement policies, easily accessible childcare, more opportunities to job share, take career breaks etc and, of course no reduction in entitlement to maternity and paternity leave.
More spending on learning and development designed to exploit the potential of new and current staff would also be very useful. There are plenty of people looking for work or a career change who could, with support be helped to find and secure work in the NHS. I am aware of at least one project that has been successful in doing just this, bridging the gap between being out of work and having a job in the NHS.
UKIP’s public sector policies are not designed to tackle the issues that the NHS faces. For instance, UKIP would restrict learning and development in the NHS to the competence of the job an individual currently holds. No opportunity to use learning and development to provide people with the skills necessary for them to progress to even the next level in their particular part of the NHS.
Whilst it may be cheaper in the short run to fill NHS vacancies with people from without and within the EU, all it does is dodge the issues I have outlined above. Sooner or later, these issues will have to be addressed or else, we run the risk of seeing an ever higher salary bill for recruiting from abroad (over and above that resulting from addressing pay issues now) or a diminution in services. A fall in the quantity and quality of NHS services would play into the hands of those, including many in UKIP who wanted to see the NHS privatised outright.
You seem to be very confused about the whole issue of recruiting from abroad. Highly skilled, competent healthcare professionals from Portugal are lining up to work in the NHS. United Kingdom Border Agency Tier 2 Shortage Occupation List contains various medical occupations at 2211, 2217, 2231, 3218 and, confusingly 2211 again https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261493/shortageoccupationlistnov11.pdf. These easements allow people from outside the EU to come and work in the UK health sector, both private and public.
Recruitment from abroad is not a medium or long term solution to recruitment, progression and retention problems with the NHS (and elsewhere in the private, public and voluntary and community sectors). Moreover, it does nothing to help reduce UK unemployment (however one chooses to measure it), increase economic growth and improve quality of life.
The failure of the care sector to invest in learning and development was highlighted by the recent Panorama programme. The care home found wanting has, since the filming took place increased staffing levels as well as its investment in their learning and development.
By the way, India and the Philippines count as developing countries so recruiting health professionals from either or both countries counts as poaching. As an aside, there were 600 Cuban nurses working at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham in the mid 2000s. More evidence that there has been under investment in effective recruitment, progression and retention within the NHS going back at least two decades.
Yet again you make up nonsense and claim that is what UKIP would do. You do realise that without the Indian Doctors we had before the eussr intervened the nhs would collapse.
Anyone who knows the reality of the huge drop in nurse recruitment since it went to all degree level, not the year on year rise claimed by the government at all, and the lack of retention or even the registration of newly qualified nurses who realise they don’t really want to do it, would realise that nurse education is in dire need of an overhaul. Care homes have a minimum level of staffing set for the benefit of supply staff as cheap as possible meaning a lack of qualified staff one for 24 clients, and the conlablibdums want full privatisation, and as such they are knowingly underfunding the nhs and conducting dedicated smear campaigns not to mention introducing the vile health and welfare act to allow the government to close good hospitals to pay off the huge PFI debts in other hospitals miles away.
They failed in their attempts to close Lewisham and Stafford, so they have moved the goal posts for no more public consultations. You want to keep the NHS then you can not under any circumstances vote the tired old conlablibdum party into power again.
All I have done is quote UKIP’s health policy of 2012, which included proposals to dumb down learning and development within the NHS, called for serious research into a private insurance scheme to run alongside a free at the point of delivery NHS and said it was agnostic, at best, about retaining a publicly funded National Health Service.
Again, we would not have needed to import NHS staff going back as far as Enoch Powell’s Caribbean recruitment drive of the late 1950s, if we had put more money into effectively tackling recruitment, progression and retention.
I agree that learning and development needs to continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of the NHS and that means staff having to achieve higher NVQ levels in the coming years. If they do not want to do so then they will have to seek work elsewhere in the NHS or in another industry.
Care homes are mostly delivered by the private sector and, again Mr Farage thinks Government should step back from interfering in the working of the free market. Poorer terms and conditions etc, courtesy of scrapping the Social Chapter and the Working Time Directive will not improve the quality of care in either the health or care sectors.
So yet again you are accusing UKIP who like every other party hasn’t even written the manifesto for the 2015 election which is like every other parties manifesto different to the one for the may election this year, being related to different subject matters of doing things you would like to smear them with instead of looking at what the conlablibdum party is actually guilty of doing you seem determined to blame a party for all the ills created by other parties you truly are a misguided bigot. What part of the health and welfare act 2012 did ukip have what part of outsourcing the vital utilities in the nhs did ukip have what part of selling of the national assists did ukip have what part of selling our gold reserves cheap did ukip have what part of lying to the electorate of what the party stands for and then doing things never mentioned are ukip guilty of. That would be none of them and yet you support anyone of the parties guilty of the above against ukip.
You say that the skill shortages in the UK construction industry are due to a decline in the level of activity within the industry. Wrong!
If the UK construction industry had contracted then demand for labour would equal supply or be less than it, resulting in no skill shortages (which are when employers claim that they cannot fill jobs with the type of people that they are seeking). Skill shortages as a term covers a multitude of sins, one of which was addressed by the enactment of the National Minimum Wage.
Since the mid 1980s, employment in the UK construction industry has become less direct and more indirect. More and more people have been made to go self empoloyed, partly because regulatory changes brought in under Mrs Thatcher made it easier for people to become self employed within the industry. HMRC has been challenging the idea that someone may be, for example, considered to be self employed as a construction plant operator, when they do not actually own any plant. They are ‘lent’ it when they are hired as a sub contractor.
A side effect of relying ever more on subbies, particularly those who present as individuals for contracts is a diminution in spend on training, learning and development by companies in the construction sector. The cost of providing skilled labour for the construction industry has, in a large part been outsourced to the UK taxpayer by companies who practise tax efficiency, benefit from business tax cuts and other related benefits. Their recruitment of skilled, relatively cheap labour from abroad has distracted attention from a problem that has been building up over decades. A problem exacerbated by the fact that most publicly funded construction training is only to NVQ Level 2 whereas Polish bricklayers present skills at NVQ 3 and above. A UK trained bricklayer may build two model walls, but it takes a Polish bricklayer to build a brick archway to link them.
There is, as I learnt during the implentation of New Deal for Young People in 1998, little or no incentive for sub contractors to use government support to train other people to compete with them for construction contracts. Quite the oposite, in fact, the market that has evolved over the years benefits those in it by the sizeable barriers to entry that have been created. The fewer people that are in the market for bulding contracts the higher the price for the sale of labour that may be negotiated. UK plc’s construction costs rise, projects take longer and limits are set on how much innovation can occur within the industry. Recruiting skilled workers from outside the UK, even if you still pay the same to them as to current UK contractors leads to increases in quality, reductions in build time, greater potential for innovation and, overall a reduction in costs to the customer, who so often is the taxpayer. I gather UKIP is for free trade, the free inter play of demand and supply, better use of the taxpayer’s money and all that jazz!
There is plenty of public money, arguably way too much, going into providing and training new recruits for the UK construction industry. An industry, in many ways stuck in the past with an often poor grasp of the benefits of reduce, reuse and recycle. It still constructs buildings with poor energy efficiency when passivhaus construction would mean nil or negative energy bills for occupants. Modular construction, very popular abroad is still rare in the UK, despite the fact that its use allows for significant reductions in the total build time of construction projects. Modular construction also involves a lot of factory based fabrication, providing a wide range of employment opportunities for those disadvantaged when looking for work in the construction sector.
Too much of the UK construction industry is stuck in the past and building poor quality buildings. It is also becoming ever more reliant on money from the taxpayer to train and recruit its new staff. By the way, a good chunk of that money channelled by local partnerships, outside of the contriol of Westminster amd Whitehall, comes from the ERDF and ESF. The same goes for training for other parts of the economy. UK employers are directly benefiting from EU spending.
UKIP’s deregulatory approach to employment law; its assumption that business knows best; its kneejerk, negative response to anything to do with the environmental business sector and its lack of any policy for replacing ERDF and ESF spend in the regions of the UK, outside of London and the South East suggests a complete lack of insight into the problems facing a significant part of the UK economy. A steady as she goes policy will only see the situation worsen with greater demand for skilled workers from the EU and elsewhere (see, particularly 2121 and 2142 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261493/shortageoccupationlistnov11.pdf).
UKIP’s laissez faire business policy presages a further decline in employment opportunities for UK residents; higher unemployment; lower, overall tax revenues and higher public expenditure on recruitment and training services for employers. Services that construction employers should, except in a few exceptional cases, fund themselves.
UK business cannot demand ever more tax cuts and practise tax efficiency whilst at the same time demanding that more public money be spent on training and recruiting the staff it needs to make profits for its shareholders. Oh and berate, as it has done for decades now, the skills of, in particular school leavers. School leavers whose education it does its best not to fund.
UKIP, when push comes to shove, sides with big business and their analysts in the City. It has a very threadbare claim to be on the side of any worker, wherever that worker calls home.
Now you really are scraping the bottom of the propaganda barrel Why not just say UKIP is to blame for the mess the country is in because fit has been governing it for the last 40 years during which time the fiscal balance has been poor, it clearly was to blame before it even existed. Only 8 of those 40 years under conlablibdum governance has the UK not had a national debt, out of the eussr we could move towards making that more likely with the money we wouldn’t be handing over for no benefit to our tax payers, we could even rebuild the NHS to the level it was before the deliberate downgrading it has suffered for the last 30 years.
By the way, the money we will ‘save’ by not paying it to the EU will not even cover UKIP’s plans to incease defence spending by 50%. Only a 16% increase would be possible. Were we to reduce Overseas Aid to £0, which Farage says he will not do, then it would be possible to increase defence spending by 26%.
Unfortunately, for you repatriating money from the EU will cause severe problems for farmers, including the Queen. Agriculture being a big beneficiary of EU spend in the UK. Then there are ERDF and ESF which are very important to the regions outside of London and the South East. So unless UKIP plans to put UK agriculture at risk and slew the economic playing field even more in favour of London and the South East then it will have to earmark at least some of our ‘saved’ money to replace the CAP, ERDF and ESF.
We await, with bated breath, further announcements about how UKIP plans to spend over and over again our repatriated EU membership fee. A repatriated fee which will be even less than it now is (in reality), if Scotland votes Yes in September.
I wait with bated breath how we are going to spend the money lost forever in the economic black hole of the eussr that we will never see again as we are net contributors.
I have not said anything like that at all. You, though, seem to have run out of everything, except hyperbole.
There is nothing wrong with UK having a National Debt. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 to act as the Government’s banker and debt-manager and make it possible for the Government of the day to raise more money through borrowing than it could through taxation, excise duties and similar. I thought UKIP was all in favour of traditional practices?
In addition, the Government has to borrow money throughout the year to ensure that it maintains sufficient cashflow to meet all its financial commitments. Also, the interest from UK Government Debt is an important source of income for all sorts of investors, including pensioners with private pensions, businesses and, of course the City of London. The bulk of UK Government Debt is held by UK citizens and businesses. Any attempt to drastically reduce Government Debt would have serious negative consequences for the whole of the UK economy.
UK Government Debt is nowhere nearest its highest level, measured as a percentage of GDP; currently our Government ‘debt mortgage’ is only 88% of our annual GDP. In 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars it was 260% of GDP and, in 1945 at the end of the Second World War it was 250% of GDP. Government Debt was at 100% of GDP and above between 1750 and 1860 and again between the mid 1910s and the early 1960s. From the early 1970s until 2008, Government Debt was below 50% of GDP. In reality, UK’s current Government Debt is around average for the period between 1692 and today.
And, if you are really worried about debt, have a chat with yourself, your neighbours, your friends … UK household debt is greater than Government debt.
Finally, the UK’s national economy is not your household one writ large. The general case of this fallacy is the “fallacy of composition”
The government can spend money it does not have; the National Debt is not deferred taxation and neither is it a burden on future generations.
Post-crash economics: some common fallacies about austerity, Robert Skidelsky http://gu.com/p/3kt3k/tw
You use hyperbole not me, you have no idea of what UKIP stands for other than the media propaganda, You say reducing government debt is a bad thing and yet all we ever hear from chancellors is that the debt needs to be reduced. I see that you mention the end of extremely expensive times in our history as the debt being greater not such a surprise really is it? Why is UK household debt great than government debt, because of the over taxation and increasing costs of fuel and therefore everything else brought about by government policies, and the government wasting our tax money supporting parasite nations in the eussr and giving away huge amounts to nations that have Space programs for example, and yet the nations that really need it have to rely on voluntary donations to charity. You really need to find something other than attacking a single party to do you might then learn about how less than squeaky clean your preferred bunch really are.
….and breathe…..
My dear chap, all I am doing is citing UKIP policy statements from UKIP’s own website; campaign literature; Euro and local manifestos; statements by Nigel Farage and numerous UKIP Euro candidates, in particular as well as content to be found on the UKIP News website and in it’s newspaper version. And the rantings of people like your good self on Twitter, Facebook, various media websites and blogs like this
Are you saying that all the above are liars? That, for example, the Libertarian wing of UKIP is not in favour of small government, for example the privatisation of the NHS and that they do not want the right to discriminate against customers on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality?
With regards to debt, yes. it was high at two very expensive times, but also throughout a goodly portion of the 19th Century when were not embroiled in any major wars. Our current debt is mostly down to preventing the credit crunch of 2008 turning into a deep depression within the UK economy. Or are you saying that we should have let the banks fail?
I have not said reducing Government Debt is not a bad thing, but as the trend figure has been just below 50% of GDP then that seems to be a reasonable targett, today. Government Debt results out of borrowing from many sources, including pension funds, that use the interest from Government bonds to pay people their pensions. For mant, investment in Government bonds is gilt edged.
You will have to ask the Great and the Good why they are getting so exercised about our current debt levels. Ask Nigel Farage, he is as equally concerned as those in the mainstream parties.
With regards, to personal debt, UK consumers availed themselves too freely of easily available credit at a time when they thought house price rises were a one way bet. Our current, historically low level of interest rates is masking a negative equity timebomb that will be triggered when rates rise. Cue more Government borrowing to bail out home owners.
The low rate of interest that the Government now enjoys on its lending presents a great opportunity to reduce its interest payments by ‘re-mortgaging’. George Osborne was supposed to be thinking about it, but seems to have gone cold on the idea.
The Overseas Aid Budget in 2010 was £8,400,000,000.00 or 1.25% of total Government expenditure. Hardly a goldmine, is it? Mr Farage has stated he will cut the budget to 0.2% of GDP, which would have been £2,917,000,000.00 in 2010, leaving you with £5,483,000,000.00 to have played with.
It is figures like those above that imply that UKIP will have to slash public spending even more than any of the mainstream parties want to do, in order to deliver its agenda, were it ever to form a Government.
The facts speak for themselves. No need to wait until 23rd May 2014, conveniently a day after this year’s elections, to observe that UKIP’s grasp of finance is piss poor, but then UKIP are happy to employ the likes of Neil (failed financial barrister) Hamilton.
With regards to your bated breath, you have admitted that we do get a visible return on our investment in the EU. I assume that you are ignorant about invisible returns (or known, unknowns)?
There is plenty of evidence to support the assertion that the visible and invisible returns from our investment in the EU outweigh the cost of that investment. Moreover, it is reasonable to assert that the opportunity cost benefits of that investment are higher than the returns to be made on alternative uses of the money.
Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of macro-economics!
PS Are you going to ‘fess up, any time soon, as to where you found your accurate unemployment figures?
So you don’t understand that as a net contributer it is our money and we are still out of pocket overall, without taking in to account the huge burden on our industries due to eussr over regulation that 100% of our companies have to abide by even though only 5% of them trade with the eussr. I’m sorry you do not like ONS figures that don’t suit your ideas, tough because that is the reality.
Oh dear I see Mr Bigot has not yet run away, instead he is trying to make out that our not paying out £50Million a day will make us worse off, somehow. He doesn’t even mention the unneeded costs of over regulation which costs our business’ dearly even though only 5% of them trade with the bloc they are all 100% having to use the regulations. Apparently we are not seeing the benefits of the recovery made on the backs of the most needy, well that’s because the most needy are still suffering from it, it is the ever increasing, in real terms, unemployed the sick the disabled who are paying the cost of the corporate greed encouraged by conlablibdum. Unfortunately for you europhile xenophobic racist bigots we will be able to spend the money where it is needed, and there will me far more available for those things which we pay for because we are a net contributed to the bloc not a net recipient, but have to put that it was done with eu money on to it, the simple fact is that it wasn’t done with eu money it was done with our own money.
Smile. Have a cup of coffee. A croissant, perhaps. Then you’ll feel better.
Prefer tea coffee gives me heartburn and yes they make some lovely fresh croissants at my local tesco’s. I prefer a good breakfast to set me up for the day as well. BTW I couldn’t care less if the Queen and Prince Charles didn’t get any subsidies for their farms from our tax money because they don’t need it, unlike the majority of our farmers who are prevented from making a living by the edicts from brussells.
With regards to regulation, say hello to the Federation of Small Businesses:
“The internal market offers easy access for first-time exporters with a market of 500 million customers and 23 million businesses on their doorstep. The internal market creates some legal certainty and a level playing field throughout competition rules and many harmonised rules. This means that businesses can save considerable cost when selling to EU countries.”
These guys are not passionate Europhiles wearing rose tinted glasses, but hard headed businessmen and women. The types that UKIP says it wants to nurture, were it ever to come to power.
You mean like the hard headed businessmen and women who are supporting UKIP because of the damage being in the eussr is doing to industry. The ones not wearing the rose tinted glasses who can see the problems they are unneccesarily facing. The internal market creates the certainty of pointless regulation based on lowest common denominator one size fits all fits no one legislation waved through without any debate. This means it cost all business’, whether they trade in the eussr or not, large amounts of unnecessary cost. basically you are wrong on every point, eussr propaganda certainly works on the sheeple.
The Economic Benefits to the UK of EU Membership
Introduction
This paper provides details of the major economic benefits that Britain gains by being a member of the European Union. A separate paper will consider the wider political and strategic benefits that derive from membership.
Broad Economic Benefits
By being a Member State of the European Union the United Kingdom is part of the world’s largest single market – an economic zone larger than that of the USA and Japan combined with a total GDP of around £11 trillion. This single market of 500 million people provides a relatively level playing for British business to trade in. This enables not just free trade in terms of the absence of customs duties or tariffs but a common set of rules so that business does not have to comply with 27 different sets of regulations.
A European Commission study of the single market in 2007 found that the EU GDP was raised by 2.2 per cent (€233 billion) and 2.75 million jobs were created between the introduction of the single market in 1992 and 2006. For the UK, that increase in GDP would have been around £25 billion. The Government’s Department of Business, Innovation & Skills estimates that EU Member States trade twice as much with each other as a result of the single market – which they estimate has meant that increased trade within the EU since the 1980s could have been worth around six per cent higher income per capita in the UK. Exports to other EU countries account for 51 per cent of the UK’s exports of goods and services, worth £200 billion; trade with the US, by contrast, constitutes 13 per cent of UK exports.
The Business Department in the UK estimates that 3.5 million jobs in Britain are linked, directly or indirectly, to the UK’s trade with other Member States.
The single market has brought an end to many of the non-tariff barriers to trade that used to exist in Europe. For example, until a ruling of the European Court of Justice in 1987 the rules on the purity of beer in Germany made it difficult for beer producers in other Member States to export their product to one of Europe’s biggest beer markets. The German beer purity laws were overturned by the Court’s decision because they were a restriction on trade incompatible with EU law. Similarly, the French ban on the import of British beef was overturned by the Court of Justice because it was contrary to EU rules. Australia and the US are two countries that continue to ban the import of British beef despite the original reason for the ban in 1996 (BSE) long having ceased to be a problem but there is no effective means to challenge those bans.
Critically, being a member of the EU, the UK is part of the procedure for making the rules and regulations of the single market. Britain’s seat on the Council of Ministers is essential to enable the UK to put its case on proposed regulations and to argue for reform of existing rules. Our MEPs in the European Parliament are also important because most of the decisions of the EU require the Parliament’s involvement. Were the UK to leave the EU but join the European Economic Area (assuming we were admitted to the EEA), we would be bound by most single market rules but have no part in the decision-making process.
A key driver of global economic prosperity since the war has been the gradual reduction in tariff barriers as a result of successive rounds of world trade negotiations. The UK, traditionally an open, free trade economy, has benefited from the fact that the EU negotiates on behalf of the world’s largest single market – giving us far greater clout in such talks than we would have as an individual nation.
Another significant benefit to the UK from EU membership is the foreign direct investment (FDI) we receive – that is, investment in our economy from non-UK sources. Companies often locate in the UK precisely because we are inside the single market – for example, Nissan’s factory in Sunderland exports to the rest of the EU. FDI has risen considerably across the world since the 1970s. The UK continues to receive a large share of world FDI, despite the global financial crisis. For example, the UK was the fifth largest recipient after the US, China, France and Hong Kong ($46 billion in the case of the UK) in 2009. In terms of the total stock of FDI, the UK is rated third in the world behind the US and France and ahead of Hong Kong and Germany with $1.125 trillion of FDI stock in the UK in 2009.[1][2]
Business Benefits
In addition to the benefits from the single market, there are a number of ways that the EU benefits business more directly.
While it is sometimes controversial the right of free movement for EU citizens (see below) is valuable for employers as it enables them to recruit from a far wider pool. British employers have made extensive use of this access to a larger potential workforce in order to tackle some of the UK’s skill shortages.
The Community trade mark and the registration of industrial designs are two ways EU law has made life less bureaucratic for business and protected intellectual property. EU businesses can register a trade mark or an industrial design once and have it recognised in all 27 Member States.
EU competition law has been of great importance in opening up previously closed markets to new entrants, enabling British companies to expand on the continent. It has also enabled market monopolies to be tackled in a way not seen before in Europe – such as the Commission’s action against Microsoft.
Lower telecoms costs (see below) are of great benefit to business as well as to individuals. Energy costs are a big issue for some business sectors and EU competition rules have helped to keep them down; the establishment of the EU’s single market in energy in 2014 should act as a further brake on energy prices.
A key benefit from the single market is that businesses only have to deal with one set of rules rather than 27 different sets of rules when exporting to or operating in more than one EU Member State. Although harmonisation has caused difficulties in some sectors, the overall benefits have been considerable.
Personal Benefits
The most obvious benefit to individuals is the freedom to travel, live, work, study and retire anywhere in the EU (this also applies to other EEA states). No EU citizen needs a visa to visit another EU country for up to three months. You can stay longer than that provide you register with the host country, have sufficient means to sustain yourself (or a job or course of study) and health insurance (the latter may be available by paying into a state insurance scheme). Roughly 1.6 million British citizens live in the EU outside the UK.[1][2] After living in another EU country for five years you have the same rights as its own citizens.
EU citizens have a vote in local and European Parliament elections wherever they live in the EU.
Working abroad has been facilitated through the mutual recognition of qualifications, enabling professionals to work in another EU Member State without having to sit further examinations.
Travelling and working abroad in the EU has been facilitated by the introduction of the European driving licence, with common rules on the requirements of driving tests and minimum standards of fitness to drive. This has improved road safety and made it easier to drive across international borders.
Telecommunications were one of the first areas of EU economic activity to be liberalised. National monopolies were abolished between 1988 and 1998 for fixed line services, leading to a fall in the price of phone calls, as well as more choice of equipment and providers. Since 2000, the cost of a 10-minute call has fallen by an average of 74 per cent in the EU.
Consumers are now benefiting from the fairer regulation of mobile telecoms, which, since their introduction were often notorious for high prices, especially when travelling abroad. The 2007 EU legislation meant a maximum charge of 10p per minute to receive a call when abroad within the EU, no more than 30p a minute when calling home and the price of texts have fallen from around 25p to around 9p. The EU also agreed with 14 mobile phone manufacturers that there should be a standard design for chargers from 2011 in order to make life easier for consumers and reduce the 50,000 tonnes of chargers thrown away every year.
The deregulation of air travel across the EU has been one of the most noticeable benefits of the single market to consumers. The number of airline routes in the EU has dramatically expanded, low cost carriers have come into the market, enabling people to travel at lower prices and there is competition on key air routes. Deregulation has been balanced with measures to protect EU citizens against unfair practices – such as the 2005 air passenger rights which provide some protection for passengers whose flight is cancelled or who are denied boarding and the 2008 law requiring quoted fares to be all inclusive without extra charges being added when you come to pay. Package holiday travellers benefit from minimum standards that require companies to provide truthful information, notify passengers in good time of travelling arrangements and which protect them from sudden cancellations or prices increases.
British shoppers are now free to shop in any Member State without being charged customs or excise duties on goods for their personal use when they return home. Consumers have the same rights when shopping as they do when at home and the European small claims procedure makes it feasible for people to make a claim for up to €2000 if necessary. Rules are now in place to protect consumers against car price cartels, which artificially inflated the prices of both cars and car parts in Europe. For example, cars can be imported from other EU countries to take advantage of lower prices on the continent.
EU toy standards mean that parents can buy toys marked with CE symbol and be confident that the toy meets the basic standards of toy safety agreed across the EU. EU food labelling rules similarly provide consumer protection as they require all ingredients to be listed and potential allergens identified.
Health & Social Benefits
The EU Health Insurance Card is a free card which enables EU citizens to receive emergency healthcare on the same terms as the citizens of the EU country they are visiting (often free).
In addition to being able to live where they choose in the EU, pensioners can receive their UK state pension wherever they live in the EU.
The EU provides social protection for workers in three areas: working time; temporary work; and parental leave. Most workers have a maximum number of working hours, guaranteed breaks and protection against being forced to work long hours. Temporary workers are guaranteed the same basic conditions of work as full-time colleagues (except in respect of occupational social security) if they have been doing the same job for 12 weeks or more. Workers have a right to take up to three months parental leave for childcare purposes after the birth or adoption of a child until the child is a maximum of eight years of age (this is different from maternity rights).
Crime and justice
Crime knows no borders today as globalisation, ease of travel and the internet allow criminal activity to move around the world. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has been very important in bringing criminals to justice across Member State borders, preventing the long delays and sometimes politicised extradition processes seen in the recent past. The UK issued 220 EAWs in 2009, of which 80 were successfully executed. The average time taken to extradite a suspect within the EU who objects to extradition has fallen from around a year before the EAW to 48 days now. The UK’s independent review of extradition law in 2010/11, which looked at the working of the EAW, found that criticisms of the system were not well-founded.
EU police and borders co-operation hampers the movement of criminals whilst protecting the movement of law-abiding citizens. This work is focused on cross-border crime, such as drug and people smuggling and terrorism.
Environmental benefits
Like crime, pollution crosses boundaries and the sea is shared by all coastal nations. It isn’t possible to tackle climate change at national level alone. The EU has been involved in environmental work almost from the outset, not least because of the economic benefits of environmental improvement.
EU measures have raised the quality of beaches by tackling bathing water pollution, to deal with river pollution on the continent and to protect natural habitats. Tourism has benefited from the clean up of beaches at home and abroad (of the 596 UK beaches tested in 2010, 96.8% met the EU’s mandatory water quality standards).
The EU has taken a leading role in measures to combat climate change. Its members have agreed to binding targets of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, a 20 per cent increase in the use of renewable energy over the same period and a 20 per cent improvement in energy efficiency – all by 2020.
Education
Education is the responsibility of EU Member States but the EU supports cross-border projects with the aim of raising the standard of education and training in the EU in order to improve Europe’s competitiveness.
One of the EU’s most popular programmes is the university mobility scheme ERASMUS, which enables students and staff to study or work at another higher education institution in the EU. Over 7,000 British students went universities elsewhere in the EU in 2008/09 and 16,000 students from other EU countries came to the UK in the same year. A similar programme, named after Leonardo da Vinci, enables people and organisations to pursue vocational training projects across borders.
Research and development is a growing area of EU activity with substantial sums now spent on collaborative and cross-border research projects. The UK has been particularly successful in winning research grants from the EU – €2.3 billion between 2002 and 2006.
December 2011
So which europhile publication did you get that from? Take this example “EU police and borders co-operation hampers the movement of criminals whilst protecting the movement of law-abiding citizens. This work is focused on cross-border crime, such as drug and people smuggling and terrorism”. Well there is no such thing as eu police so they have done nothing, and as you can’t stop convicted criminals from travelling in the bloc freedom of movement guarantees their suability to do so. Cross border drug and people smuggling has been aided, and law abiding citizens are suffering because of it.
The Wider Benefits of UK Membership of the EU
Introduction
The Senior European Experts paper ‘The Economic Benefits to the UK of EU Membership’ focused on how the United Kingdom gains from being part of the world’s largest single market – an economic zone larger than that of the USA and Japan combined with a total GDP of around £11 trillion.
It is impossible to separate completely the economic and political benefits of UK membership but this paper considers the wider political and strategic benefits of EU membership, benefits which cannot be as easily quantified but although they may be less tangible are of equal, or perhaps even greater, importance.
Background
It is a myth that British politicians played down the political aspects of British membership when we joined, and suggested that we were simply joining a “common market”. On the day it was announced that the UK was going to apply for membership in 1961, Harold Macmillan (the then Prime Minister) told Parliament that membership of the Communities,
“is a political as well as an economic issue”.
In his pamphlet “Britain, the Commonwealth and Europe”, Macmillan was even clearer:
“We in Britain are Europeans…We have to consider the state of the world as it is today and will be tomorrow and not in outdated terms of a vanished past. There remain only two national units which can claim to be world powers in their own right, namely the United States and Soviet Russia… It is true of course that political unity is the central aim of those European countries and we would naturally accept that ultimate goal”.[1]
The point was reinforced during the 1971/72 negotiations by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home in a speech to the House of Commons:
“On two counts I am in full agreement with the most vocal opponent of our entry into Europe. The first is that our application is a step of the utmost political significance, and the second is that there is a danger of its political importance being overlooked in the public debate on the economic issues”.
He continued:
“It seems to me that the only way to preserve our independence for the future is to join a larger grouping. It may seem paradoxical but I believe it to be true”.[2]
The emphasis on the political aspects of membership stemmed partly from a concern about declining British influence but also from the recognition by the British government that many of the problems faced by nation states cross international borders – pollution, crime, people smuggling and terrorism are all examples – so countries cannot simply stand behind their own borders to protect their national interests. International co-operation is essential to the defence of national interest. The EEC was becoming then – as the EU is now – the pre-eminent body in Europe for the advancement of such co-operation as well as being the organisation to which all the UK’s largest European trading (and defence) partners belong.
Global Influence
The UK’s ability to act globally on its own has waned since 1945 but our interests have not ceased to be global. Of course the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world has radically changed since then; the Empire has gone, and with it many of the trappings of imperial power, such as very large armed forces. But the UK’s economic dependence on the rest of the world has increased. For example, we are the world’s second largest manager of investment funds after the United States (and the biggest in Europe).[3] We have the second largest share of world exports in services, again, second only to the United States. More than a quarter of our GDP derives from the export of goods – a greater share than that of the US but about the same as that of France.[4] One-third of our energy needs are currently met through imports and that share will rise as our production of oil and gas continues to decline.[5] So what happens in the rest of the world matters greatly to the UK and our capacity to influence external events, particularly those issues handled at supranational level, is a key indicator of our national power.
While the UK is economically dependent on the wider world, its power to influence it is constrained. It needs to be able to influence international discussions about trade, the global economy, energy, security and the environment. Being a permanent member of the UN Security Council gives the UK a voice at the top table (and a veto on resolutions before the Council) but that is not enough by itself. As a Member State in the EU the UK exercises far greater influence internationally that it could on its own. When the EU takes a common position – as it does in world trade talks for example where the EU negotiates on behalf of its members – its size and importance gives it greater impact than any of its 27 members would have on their own. Being a member of the EU enables the UK to leverage its influence in many different ways.
The institutions of the EU enable its Member States to work together – when they choose to do so – in a whole range of international fora. At the United Nations, in global climate talks and in the G20 group of larger economies the EU can exercise greater influence collectively.
The EU continues to play a leading role in global action to tackle climate change – a key policy concern of the UK but where our national influence is limited outside the EU.
The EU and its Member States are the world’s biggest aid donors; EU membership enables the UK to leverage its aid policy to greater effect through sharing in a joint programme. The scale of the EU’s development aid means that it has influence in many parts of the developing world.
With the rise of new economic and political powers, the EU provides a forum for the UK to develop a common approach for key issues of mutual concern with the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. While membership of the EU increases its members’ political influence in relation to these areas, it does not inhibit their ability to promote their exports to them – as countries such as Germany and France have done more successfully than we have so far done.
In all these discussions the UK is part of the decision-making process as a full member of the EU. The countries that have stayed out of the EU but have a trading relationship with it, such as Norway and Switzerland, are bound by many EU decisions but are not party to them. A recent official inquiry in Norway into its membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) noted:
“The most problematic aspect of Norway’s form of association with the EU is the fact that Norway is in practice bound to adopt EU policies and rules on a broad range of issues without being a member and without voting rights. This raises democratic problems. Norway is not represented in decision-making processes that have direct consequences for Norway, and neither do we have any significant influence on them”.[6]
Switzerland is not in the EEA, but it has agreed to adopt many EU rules on the single market without having a say in decision-making.
Common Foreign & Security Policy
This has long been an important part of EU activity. The EU is an essential partner in many aspects of international affairs, and has its own arrangements for common foreign & security policy (CFSP) which are not a substitute for Member States’ own foreign ministries but a vital adjunct to them. When Member States are considering a problem in relations with a third country, they will automatically consider whether this is something that they can best address with their EU partners. Foreign ministry officials are in constant touch with their opposite numbers. Member States will routinely bring problems they have to the EU’s monthly foreign affairs council for discussion and possible action. The decision in 1997 to create a High Representative for CFSP, and the creation in 2011 of the European External Action Service, have demonstrated the importance that the EU Member States place on developing effective policy in this field.
All these activities proceed by way of collaboration and consensus. Under the Lisbon Treaty, implementing action can be agreed by majority vote but only if the policy itself has been unanimously agreed. This can sometimes mean that a single Member State can thwart the wishes of all the others (for example, Cyprus in relations with Turkey, or Greece in relations with Macedonia) but it is fundamental to the way this important part of EU activity is conducted.
There are many examples of ways in which political co-operation has been a success. For example, it was the EU that first promoted the concept of a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine dispute; to-day it is part of the Quartet that is seeking to bring peace to the Middle East. In diplomatic discussions to resolve the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the EU is once again centrally involved through the ‘five plus one’ partnership. The EU provides the UK with a crucial forum for seeking a common approach to key issues of mutual concern with countries of growing importance like China, India, Brazil and Russia. On many UN issues, the EU has been able to display a united front.
From the outset, when the European Coal & Steel Community was established in 1951, European cooperation was recognised as a means of making war between France and Germany impossible. It is sometimes claimed that NATO has prevented war in Europe since 1945 but NATO’s main focus was on deterring Soviet aggression. The economic, political and cultural ties created by the European Community were of crucial importance in avoiding conflict because the EC not only developed economic integration but it provided a forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes between its members and enabled new political relationships to be developed.
The new relationship that developed between France and Germany has been mirrored elsewhere in Europe as the process of EU enlargement has brought former dictatorships and Communist states back into the European family of nations, consolidating democracy and the rule of law as common European values. Although this process is not yet complete, for example in the Balkans, the extension of peace and stability by means of enlargement is one of the EU’s finest achievements and the resulting transformation has been, and continues to be, very much in Britain’s political and economic interests. The positive role the EU can play in dispute resolution was seen during the negotiations that led to the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement when the availability of EU development funds and the fact that the UK and Ireland were already working together in the EU helped to secure consensus.
Today the EU is developing a new role in security policy, complementary to that of NATO and one which reflects the unique ability of the EU to combine the “hard” power of the military forces of its members (often through the medium of NATO structures) with the “soft” power of its experience in nation-building activities such as the nurturing of civic institutions and economic development. In a period of austerity this is valuable to Member States to enable them to act more cost-effectively.
The EU’s role in Europe’s neighbourhood reflects the fact that its Member States have security interests in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean that are not necessarily shared by the North American members of NATO. The EU’s neighbourhood is an area of tension – an ‘arc of instability’ from Archangel to Agadir – but it is also an area of opportunity.
Relations with the USA
Membership of the EU strengthens the UK’s bilateral relationships with third countries. For example, the UK has been the United States’ most important ally since 1941 but our importance to the US today derives in a large part from our EU membership, especially in a period when the focus of American interest is moving to areas such as Asia and the Pacific. The UK tends to think it has a “special relationship” with the US but with 55 million Americans of German descent, it is hardly surprising that many Germans think of their country having a similarly close relationship with the USA.
If the UK left the EU this would not only endanger the UK economy (Britain is the largest destination for US investment in the EU for example) but it would undermine our political relationship with the United States. The UK’s membership of the EU makes it valuable to the US as an ally today.
Crime & Justice
The EU’s role in justice and home affairs has grown over the last 20 years. This reflects the increasing truth that crime is international; cross-border crime is now a serious threat to law and order in all EU Member States. Illegal drugs, cyber crime, human trafficking, terrorism and organised crime of all kinds cannot effectively be tackled by one country alone. The EU provides the most important forum for this work in Europe and co-operation in justice matters means that criminals can no longer hide from justice by moving to another EU state. The Europol, Frontex and Eurojust EU agencies are valued by UK agencies working in this field. The Serious Organised Crime Agency has said that it is making more use of co-operation through the EU in the light of UK budget cuts.
Conclusion
When the UK joined the EU in 1973 it pooled some of its sovereignty with the other Member States for mutual benefit. This sharing of sovereignty has continued as the EU has changed to reflect the needs and concerns of different times
The EU was from the beginning an organisation with political objectives – as has been openly acknowledged throughout the fifty years since the British Government made the historic decision to apply for membership. Arguments to the contrary are polemical and not historical.
The agreement to share sovereignty is seen most obviously in the single market where the UK agrees by qualified majority vote the rules for the operation of that market. But political co-operation, which proceeds by consensus, has contributed to an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in Europe, where wars between Member States are unthinkable and economic, cultural and political ties have transformed the quality of life of millions of Europeans.
The EU that has developed since the UK joined in 1973 shows more flexibility. Britain and Ireland do not belong to the Schengen Area; and Britain and Denmark have permanent opt-outs from the euro. No Member State can be required to participate in defence policy if it does not wish to do so.
The events of the last fifty years have confirmed the trend towards international co-operation. This is because even more of the challenges faced by nation states today go beyond the borders of any one of them. Energy, climate change, the environment, terrorism, security and our relationship with the developing world are all issues which are too big for the United Kingdom to address effectively on its own and require common effort with our European partners.
February 2012
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[1] Britain and the Commonwealth, Harold Macmillan MP, September 1962.
[2] Speech reprinted as Our European Destiny, Conservative Group for Europe, 1971
[3] Fund Management, at, http://www.thecityuk.com/assets/Uploads/Fund-Management-2011.pdf
[4] This figure, and the preceding one, from UK trade performance: Patterns in UK and global trade growth, Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, November 2010.
[5] Figures from UK Energy Supply: Security or Independence, House of Commons Energy & Climate Change Committee, HC 1065, October 2011, p.13.
[6] Outside and Inside: Norway’s Agreements with the European Union, 17 January 2012.
The largest market is outside of the eussr, it like the eussr is controlled by the WTO who would not allow the eussr to block trade with the UK in any event. The difference is that we can’t negotiate any trade deals outside the eussr bloc without the permission or intervention of the unelected commissioner, outside we could do, and this would enhance not reduce our economic position, it is only little europeans who think the eussr is a good thing, and that they are so stupid they think that the eussr would be even more of a spiteful unimaginative body and stop trading with one of the worlds biggest economies where it has a positive trade balance because we but far more from than we sell to the eussr. Only defeatists would want to stay in this racist bloc.
Facts and Figures on the EU Budget
The proposed EU budget for 2014-2020 is just 1.05% of EU GDP, whereas Member States’ budgets account for 44% of GDP on average.
Member State budgets are also increasing: In 2012, 24 national budgets out of 27 are due to increase according to the latest estimates.
More than 94% of EU budget goes back to EU citizens, overwhelmingly more than is the case for national budgets.
48% of new EU budget will go to measures promoting growth.
Only 6% will be allocated to administrative expenditure. Administrative reform, which already started a few years ago, has already saved EU taxpayers €3 billion, and it is expected to generate another €5 billion in savings by 2020.
Spending at the EU level can help Member States achieve economies of scale and reduce spending at the national level. €50 billion will be spend to fund transport, energy, and ICT priority infrastructures of pan-European interest, through the Connecting Europe Facility.
In 1985 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. In 2011, direct aid to farmers and market-related expenditure were just 30% of the EU budget.
CAP reform has moved support away from production and towards income-support for farmers and projects to stimulate economic activity in rural areas.
The average EU farmer receives less than half of what the average US farmer receives in public support.
Estimates for 2009 are that the number employed was 5.6 million higher as a result of EU spending through cohesion policy in 2000-2006.
GDP in the EU-25 has been 0.7% higher in 2009 due to EU cohesion policy investments during 2000-2006. This is estimated to rise to 4% by 2020. Growth in poorer regions and Member States thanks to EU spending leads to purchase of goods and services from another, richer region or member state. EU spending can increase demand at one part of the EU, creating more jobs at another.
EU Cohesion funding helped to revitalize Merseyside, and continues to invest in the Liverpool City Region. £300 million are spend to improve electronic interconnectivity between the UK and Ireland. Satellites for the EU funded Galileo project are built in Britain, creating high-paid jobs.
The UK received the second largest share of Research and Development funding, €2,282m, equal to 14.4% of the total EU spending on R&D.
According to the Court of Auditors, 95% of payments at EU level are correct. Out of the 5% error rate only 0.2% represents fraud. When EU funds are judged to be spend inappropriately, they are clawed back and returned to the EU budget.
The EU budget has never run a deficit.
The European Movement UK is Britain’s longest standing pro-European organization, campaigning for decades to inform the debate around the benefits of EU membership.
We are a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization, funded exclusively by our members. Visit http://www.euromove.org.uk to see how you can join us and help keep Britain in the EU.
http://www.euromove.org.uk
@euromove
Facts & Figures on the free movement of people in the EU.
A report by the European Commission shows that the vast majority of EU citizens move to another EU member state to work.
Overall, most recent data do not suggest that “welfare tourism” or exploitation of the benefits system is a significant problem among mobile EU citizens.
In most Member States mobile EU citizens represent less than 4% of the total population.
In 4 Member States (Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Austria) they represent 5-8% of the total population. In 2 Member States (Cyprus and Luxembourg) mobile EU citizens represent >10% of the total population (Luxembourg = 39%).
78% of all the 14,1 million mobile EU citizens were of working age (15 to 64), compared to a share around 66% amongst nationals (European Commission).
More than 77% of working-age EU mobile citizens were economically active, compared to less than 72% amongst nationals (European Commission).
68% of working-age mobile EU citizens were in employment, compared to 65% amongst nationals (European Commission).
GDP of EU-15 estimated to have increased by almost 1% in the long-term as a result of post-enlargement mobility (2004-2009) (European Commission)
Recent intra-EU mobility flows generated an overall income gain of around 24 billion euros for EU citizens (European Commission).
There is no evidence of mobile EU citizens representing an excessive burden on social security systems in the host Member States.
In the period 2005-2009 citizens from EU-8 (central and eastern European) countries living in the UK experienced a higher fiscal burden than the native population. At the same time, they claimed lower tax benefits or credits, and received lower social housing benefits (European Commission).
A recent study by the Centre of European Reform shows that just 1.7% are on Jobseeker’s Allowance, half the rate of the host population.
A far smaller proportion of A8 immigrants receive disability, pension, and child benefits than British people. Very few European migrants live in social housing, and only 5% receive housing benefit.
The proportion of the NHS budget spent on non-active EU migrants is between 0.7% and 1.1%.
According to a recent study by the OECD, immigrants to the UK have made a positive fiscal contribution.
A study by the UCL’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, found that in the year to April 2009 workers from Eastern Europe contributed £1.37 in taxes for every £1 of services they used. Native Britons on the other hand contributed just 80 pence for every pound of services they consumed.
As of February 2011, 16,6% (over 5.5 million) of working age UK nationals were claiming a working-age benefit from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) compared to 6,6% (371.000) for non-UK nationals. Just 1,6% of all claimants are mobile EU citizens.
According to DWP estimates, of 1.44 million people claiming Jobseekers Allowance in 2011, 8.5% of these were non-UK nationals, of which fewer than 38,000 claimants were from EU countries, approximately 2.6% (European Commission Report).
The 600.000 figure mentioned in the UK press refers to non-active migrants, a category which includes as well as job seekers, older schoolchildren, students, retired people, people taking time out of the labour market to bring up children and other direct family members.
64% of non-active EU migrants in UK have previously worked in the UK. The study by the Centre of European Reform shows that just 0.2% of migrants claim unemployment benefit but have never worked in the UK
The proportion of EU migrants in this non-active category is far lower – 30% – than the 43% in the general population.
The share of non-active EU migrants from the total population in the UK was 1.2% in 2011 and stayed the same in 2012.
The vast majority of non-active EU migrants (79%) live in economically active households.
Employment rates are relatively higher for non-UK EU-born citizens and this group of workers is estimated to account for 4,3% of UK employee income taxes.
According to the Office for National Statistics the employment rate among EU migrants is 77% and, while that of British nationals is 72%.
According to the study by the OECD, EU mobile workers main motivation for moving to another EU member state is work.
According to the European Commission report, migrant workers from other Member States, not only in UK but EU-wide, pay more in taxes and social security than they receive in benefits and services because they tend to be younger and more economically-active than host countries’ own workforce.
The Fiscal Sustainability Report, published by the Office for Budget Responsibility in July 2013, found that if there was a complete ban on immigrants, UK borrowing would rise from 75% of GDP in 2012 to 174% of GDP in 2062.
A report by Centre for Economics and Business Research argues that curbing EU immigration could cost the UK £60 billion in lost GDP by 2050 and drive up national debt.
Note: The European Commission report does not include evidence of ‘welfare tourism’ in the UK because the British Government was unable to provide any.
The European Movement UK is Britain’s longest standing pro-European organization, campaigning for decades to inform the debate around the benefits of EU membership.
We are a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization, funded exclusively by our members. Visit http://www.euromove.org.uk to see how you can join us and help keep Britain in the EU.
http://www.euromove.org.uk
@euromove
In 2010, the UK’S gross investment in the EU was £12,446,000,000 or £34,098,630.14 per day. I appreciate that such a figure might seem quite large to the average man or woman in the street.
However, total Government expenditure in 2010/11, including our investment in the EU, was £672,300,000,000.00. £12,446,000,000.00 as a percentage of total Government expenditure equals 1.85%. Hardly the major pot from which to fund everything that UKIP wants to spend it on.
UK defence expenditure was £42,600,000,000.00 in 2010/11. Had a UKIP Government, been in power in 2010 and sought to increase that budget by 50% (as UKIP says it plans to do, if it ever gets into power) or £21,300,000,000.00 then the cancelling of our EU subscription would still have left us short to the tune of £8,854,000,000.00.
Ye cannae get a quart out of a pint pot, Captain!
Oh dear another idiot claiming to have a crystal ball, making out that UKIP has said it will do something it hasn’t, what next telling us what the 2015 manifesto is like other people desperate to slur a party they fear.
Try telling the average farmer that not receiving payments from the Common Agricultural Policy will be good for them! By the way, they were receiving subsidies long before the ECSC was founded.
Whether or not you care less about big landowners ceasing to benefit from the CAP is frankly beside the point. Those payments safeguard jobs on the estates of large landowners (and on smaller sized farms) as well as providing income for the businesses that supply them with goods and services, further safeguarding jobs in the wider eceonomy. The exact opposite of the Multiplier Effect. I take it your concern for the unemployed, low paid etc is not as deep as your irrational hatred of the EU and all it’s works?
You remind me of the Tory Minister in the 1980s, who said the pit closures were good for mining communities, because the closures were freeing up miners to explore and develop their potential in ways, other than digging coal.
I take it you are unfamilar with both the Mulitplier Effect as well as the concept of Opportunity Cost? Happy to explain, in detail, how these terms apply to the real economy, if you are unfamilar with them.
Try telling the average ex farmer who either committed suicide or went broke because of the CAP how good it is, you remind me of the tory minister in the 1980’s who said the pit closures were good for the mining community because the closures were freeing up miners to do other things, only now it is freedom of movement flooding the market is good because you can set up a new business with the massive £70.00 a week you might get until you get sanctioned. I take it you are unfamiliar with the reality that people suffer every day for this keynsian dream you seem to believe in.
Please explain how you extrapolate from ONS figures to back up any of your assertions? Only 5% of UK companies may trade directly with other parts of the EU, but unless their supply train is completely inhouse then this 5% is a starting point not the last word.
As an aside, which business regulations would you relax or do away with? Would all of them be EU inspired, given that such regulations concerning, for example Health and Safety, child labour and food adulteration long predate our membership of the EU.
Again, what is the source of your unemployment figures?
There are 2,158,660 SMEs in the UK. The Federation of Small Businesses is the UK’s largest campaigning pressure group promoting and protecting the interests of the self-employed and owners of small firms. Formed in 1974, it now has 200,000 members across 33 regions and 194 branches, in other words the FSB represents around 10% of all the SMEs in the UK. The FSB is non-profit making and non-party political. I would be wary about calling these guys, sheep!
Whether in or out of the EU, we will have to comply with EU regulations (and similar) if we wish to continue trading with EU and non EU countries. Just like we do today. The USA does not allow imports into the country that do not comply with its regulatory framework.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business. Outside of the EU, we would have a weaker say in how WTO agreements are drawn up and enforced. We would find few partners wishing to bother with negotiating bilateral agreements with the UK. They spend enough time negotiating through the WTO.
I agree that it is our (EU) money that I helped to spend in Birmingham and Soihull. 100s of 1,000s of pounds of which went into the regeneration of Birmingham city centre. Had this money remained in London then we would have had to have gotten out the begging bowl and gone down on both knees to try and get a percentage of what we got from Brussels. In Brussels, Birmingham is treated with respect and regarded as a major European city. In London, we are lucky if we get the time of day.
Are you so ignorant that you see the return on our investment in the EU purely in narrow monetary terms? That is mercantilist economics that pre-dates Adam Smith. No mainstream economist would consider such analysis valid today, some 248 years after Mr Smith wrote his groundbreaking, The Wealth of Nations.
EU is the largest economy in world, worth £11 trillion. The USA is worth £10.3tn trillion, China £5.4 trillion and Japan 2.7 trillion. Nearly 34% of world trade originates in Europe. This trade is worth around $US 5.5tn annually.
An EEF report found that:
85 per cent of EEF members support Britain’s on-going membership of the EU
UK benefited from £2.7 billion of R&D spending carried out by EU parented companies in 2011
37 per cent of companies would have to make significant changes to their business plans if the UK left the EU – and one third would be less likely to invest here
The UK attracts the most foreign investment out of all countries in Europe
Almost 90 per cent of EEF manufacturers sell directly or indirectly to customers in the EU
Three in five members say the EU is key to their export strategy
Report: Manufacturing: Our Future In Europe (2013).
“More than 1,300 Japanese companies have invested in the UK, as part of the single market of the EU, and have created 130,000 jobs, more than anywhere else in Europe. This fact demonstrates that the advantage of the UK as a gateway to the European market has attracted Japanese investment. The government of Japan expects the UK to maintain this favourable role.” Embassy of Japan in the United Kingdom (July 2013).
“The UK attracts strong Australian investment partly due to our long-term links but also because of the UK’s position in the EU market. Australia’s strong links with the UK allow Australian businesses to use the UK as a platform for trade and investment in the broader EU market.” Bob Carr, Foreign Minister, Australia (July 2013).
A study by TheCityUK, the lobbying body for the finance industry, of the attitudes of 101 UK-based chief executives, board members, directors and partners from the financial and professional services sector and found that:
• 84% want the UK to remain a member of the EU
• 94% recognised the value of staying in the Single Market
• 90% of business say that the decision about EU membership is important for the future of their business
• 88% agree EU membership economically benefits the UK as a whole
• 37% said they would relocate staff to somewhere within the single market if Britain ended up outside it.
• 41% said David Cameron’s proposal to hold a referendum on EU membership by 2017 was causing uncertainty.
• 95% say that access to the Single European Market is important to the UK’s competitiveness
• More than eight out of ten respondents believe that staying in the EU is the best option for the competitiveness of the UK as a financial centre.
• Almost 90% think an exit from the Single Market and the EU would damage the UK’s competitiveness.
“The City Speaks – A milestone study of the views of financial and related professional services leaders on the EU” (October 2013).
“We have a growing relationship with the European Union as an institution which has a growing voice in the world – and we want to see a strong British voice in that European Union. That is in the American interest.” Philip Gordon, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (January 2013).
I do not need to know any UKIP policy to prove that reducing Overseas Aid and ending our investment in the EU will not free up the resources to deliver the ambitious spending plans that people like you seem to think that a withdrawal from the EU would make possible. By the way, the UKIP leaflet I have before me says that the money made available by our withdrawal from the EU will be committed to reducing our National Debt. Would you like a copy of this policy statement, endorsed by Nigel Farage?
I think it is in rather bad taste to talk about farmers who have committed suicide. However, as an aside, Nigel Farage’s proposals to relax UK gun laws is hardly likely to reduce the number of murders and suicides linked to the ownership of guns.
I do find your stream of consciousness approach, a la James Joyce, rather amusing. Are you opposed to providing unemployed people with the resources to start their own businesses?
You seem very confused about the whole matter of freedom of movement. Perhaps you should spend a few hours reading those fact sheets I have posted?
May I ask what is wrong with the Keynsian analysis of how a mixed economy functions? By the way, I do not, unlike people in UKIP believe in any particular economic policy. I base my judgements on facts, not ignorant, blind prejudice. As a very wise man once observed, “In God we trust! All others must bring facts!”
With regard to Keynes, AD = C + I + G + (X-M) is a truism. The Multiplier Effect and Opportunity Cost are free standing economic tools. Even HM Treasury is perfectly happy to deploy them when appraising spending projects.
By the way, I would slow down whilst reading stuff, that sentence did not refer to an EU police force, but co-operation between the police forces of EU countries. Law abiding citizens were not suffering from international crime before the EU came into existence? You are unfamilar with drug dealing in London before World War Two?
As an aside, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.
The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.
British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly’s Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the Convention. As a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, he had seen first-hand how international justice could be effectively applied.
The ECHR is as British as bacon and egg. Forgive me for putting my faith in the ECHR rather than the will of a wisp Bill of Rights that UKIP proposes to put in its place.
Say hello to a whole flock of sheep!
“That’s the chief reason we’re in favour of the UK maintaining its long-established place at the heart of the European Union: it provides greater investment stability and certainty. But, as a global business with feet planted firmly on both sides of the Channel, we also believe that the UK’s national interests are best served by a close relationship with Europe.” Ben van Beurden, Shell Chief Executive (March 2014).
“We benefit from, and support the UK being in the EU” Ivan Menezes, Chief Executive of Diageo, the world’s biggest spirits maker.
The UK “acts as a gateway to Europe for many financial institutions and corporates from around the world. Their establishment and subsequent growth in the UK is no coincidence but is linked to the country’s membership of the world’s largest single market, the European Union.” Daniel Pinto, Co-Chief Executive of JPMorgan’s corporate & investment bank in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
The UK would be better off staying inside the European Union “than kicking against the table” and voting to leave. “We are a positive contributor in that sense to the UK economy and we [would] have to look at that then for the UK v Europe, just like we do in any other country that is not in the EU.” Paul Polman, the Dutch chief executive of the consumer multinational Unilever.
“Jobs and the growth of Britain’s economy depend on maintaining and increasing exports to the EU, particularly as the European economy begins to recover. This will be a much more difficult task if businesses have to contend with a Britain that has decided to exit the EU. Existing trade arrangements will be at risk and Britain will have no influence in making the rules in the future.” Citi Bank Chief Executive for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. (January 2014).
“We all need to know where Britain’s future lies in a changing global economy. We have looked beyond the political rhetoric to examine the pros and cons of EU membership and British business is unequivocal; the Single Market is fundamental to our future.”
“We are better off in a reformed EU than outside with no influence. Each year, membership is worth £3000 to every household in this country.” John Cridland, CBI Director-General (November 2013). The CBI has produced a report entitled ‘Our Global Future: the Business Vision for a Reformed EU’.
“If something went dramatically wrong with the trading relationships between the UK and the EU, it would affect us and a lot of businesses. If a parting regressed into protectionism towards the rest of Europe, then that would be a bad thing and a backward step.” Phil Couchman, CEO, DHL Express UK and Ireland (October 2013).
“The UK is part of the European Union — that’s very important. From the foreign investor’s point of view, I hope that the UK will remain an EU member. A lot of regulations are under the EU. If the UK, after departing from the EU, made unique regulations, unique standards, that would become an obstacle.” Toshiyuki Shiga, COO, Nissan, (October 2013).
“Europe is the bedrock of our international trade. It should be viewed as the launch-pad from which our global trade can expand – not the landmass from which we retreat. And if we are to avoid an exit vote in any referendum – it is essential that the voice of British business is loud and clear – in extolling the virtues of future engagement – not as a reluctant participant – but as the lynchpin of our wider global trade ambitions.” Sir Roger Carr, President, CBI (November 2012).
“The UK must not become a peripheral country on the edge of Europe. This will be damaging to long-term prospects of British business and also in the country’s ability to attract new international companies to set up and employ people in the country. “ Sir Richard Branson Founder, Virgin Group (January 2013).
“It is really poppycock to believe that the City can survive in its present form if it is not an integral part of the European financial services framework. London must have complete and unfettered access to the wholesale Euro markets … We know that London benefits from attracting firms that want easy access to the Single Market. Those firms arrive here and create jobs across the UK as their operations develop.” Gerry Grimstone Chairman, CityUK (October 2012).
“The survey of more than 400 businesses employing more than 1.5 million direct employees shows 78% of firms favour staying in the EU, including 77% of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Just 10% think it is in their interests for the UK to leave the EU (11% of SMEs). ” CBI/ YouGov Survey (September 2013).
“Firms want what is best for jobs and growth, and there is genuine concern that an exit would hit business investment and access to the world’s largest trading bloc … Businesses do have some serious concerns about the EU, but ultimately they want the UK inside the tent winning the argument for reform.” John Cridland Director-General, CBI (September 2013).
“Britain must not gamble on its future in Europe. The stakes are enormous. It is naïve to think we can simply pull up the drawbridge and carry on as normal. The debate must move on to how we can make Europe work to support jobs, growth and higher living standards. We need to focus on the real prize – how we can get Europe to work better supporting companies that are looking to sell into the EU, to export to new markets in the rest of the world and develop new products and services. We must be at the centre of the change we want to see in Europe, to help secure the prize and ensure we share in it. Billions of pounds of trading opportunities are at stake and we must keep the focus – and the wider debate – on these opportunities which will unleash growth in our economy now and in the longer term. The clear message from manufacturers, who employ millions in the UK, is that we must lead on this and play an active part in shaping the EU from within.” Terry Scuoler Chief Executive, EEF (October, 2013).
An EEF report found that:
85 per cent of EEF members support Britain’s on-going membership of the EU
UK benefited from £2.7 billion of R&D spending carried out by EU parented companies in 2011
37 per cent of companies would have to make significant changes to their business plans if the UK left the EU – and one third would be less likely to invest here
The UK attracts the most foreign investment out of all countries in Europe
Almost 90 per cent of EEF manufacturers sell directly or indirectly to customers in the EU
Three in five members say the EU is key to their export strategy. Report: Manufacturing: Our Future In Europe (2013).
“A non-EU Britain looks bleak, dead and buried – an economy left out in the cold. UK firms may need to pay EU export tariffs and would still have to meet EU production standards. […] It would be an open invitation for major businesses to up sticks for another EU country, putting thousands of people out of work in the UK in the process.”
“More than 70 per cent of imports enter the single market at zero or reduced tariffs. The EU-US trade deal is expected to generate €80bn (£67.7bn) worth of benefits for the EU and create 2m jobs. The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement saves EU exporters £1.35bn annually in tariffs. UK companies alone benefit by £500m a year, while 50 per cent of foreign direct investment to the UK comes from other EU member states. Over 40 per cent of UK exports go to the EU and they are tariff-free. More than 300,000 UK companies operate in the EU.” Helen Brand, Chief Executive, ACCA (October 2013).
“The TUC is concerned that uncertainty around the UK’s relationship with Europe could further jeopardise investment and jobs at a time when Britain has not recovered from the global financial crisis, with high unemployment, especially among young people. This is particularly the case where major unionised companies have invested in plants in the UK because EU membership gives access to the single market.” TUC, General Council Statement on Europe (September 2013).
“Every European firm would be gone in very short order”. Michael Sherwood, Vice President, Goldman Sachs (September 2013).
“More than 1,300 Japanese companies have invested in the UK, as part of the single market of the EU, and have created 130,000 jobs, more than anywhere else in Europe. This fact demonstrates that the advantage of the UK as a gateway to the European market has attracted Japanese investment. The government of Japan expects the UK to maintain this favourable role.” Embassy of Japan in the United Kingdom (July 2013).
“The UK attracts strong Australian investment partly due to our long-term links but also because of the UK’s position in the EU market. Australia’s strong links with the UK allow Australian businesses to use the UK as a platform for trade and investment in the broader EU market.” Bob Carr, Foreign Minister, Australia (July 2013).
A study by TheCityUK, the lobbying body for the finance industry, of the attitudes of 101 UK-based chief executives, board members, directors and partners from the financial and professional services sector and found that:
• 84% want the UK to remain a member of the EU
• 94% recognised the value of staying in the Single Market
• 90% of business say that the decision about EU membership is important for the future of their business
• 88% agree EU membership economically benefits the UK as a whole
• 37% said they would relocate staff to somewhere within the single market if Britain ended up outside it.
• 41% said David Cameron’s proposal to hold a referendum on EU membership by 2017 was causing uncertainty.
• 95% say that access to the Single European Market is important to the UK’s competitiveness
• More than eight out of ten respondents believe that staying in the EU is the best option for the competitiveness of the UK as a financial centre.
• Almost 90% think an exit from the Single Market and the EU would damage the UK’s competitiveness. “The City Speaks – A milestone study of the views of financial and related professional services leaders on the EU” (October 2013)
“The growth in financial and related professional services in this country over the last two decades is closely linked to the UK’s membership of the EU. The attractiveness of the UK as the “Gateway to Europe” means the UK enjoys very significant net inflows of foreign direct investment. Our research has shown that the benefits of EU membership are numerous for our respondents, not least in the gains we make from trade, increased competition, and by providing access to the world’s largest market.” James Nixon Chief Economist, TheCityUK (October 2013).
“We have a growing relationship with the European Union as an institution which has a growing voice in the world – and we want to see a strong British voice in that European Union. That is in the American interest.” Philip Gordon, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (January 2013).
Say hi to some more very influential sheep:
Businesses backing Britain to stay IN Europe
26 March, 2014 @ 2:58 PM
When it comes to the debate about whether Britain should be IN or OUT of Europe, it’s clear what British businesses want.
According to a report by the CBI, 8 out of 10 businesses would vote to stay IN Europe. Here are just a few of them:
Easyjet
“EasyJet is a product of the EU’s deregulation of Europe’s aviation market. Without deregulation we would not exist.”
Vodafone
“The Internal Market has allowed Europe to influence economic policymaking in other regions of the world far more effectively than the UK could have done on a unilateral basis, allowing UK firms to enter and participate in global markets which might otherwise be less accessible to them”
Kelloggs (which operates out of Manchester)
“The biggest short term risk to Manchester’s competitiveness in the EU is a simple one. It is the risk the UK could leave it.”
Nissan
“The UK is part of the European Union – [that] is very important….From the foreign investor point of view I hope that the UK will remain as an EU member.”
Unilever
“The UK economy is not strong enough [on its own] in a globally interdependent world. We tend to take for granted the good things the EU brings to Britain, [but] don’t expect the same benefits if you are out.”
BT
“The EU plays a vital role opening market access world-wide, with far greater leverage (for example into Asian markets) than could be obtained by nations acting individually.”
Nestle
“From a purely economic point of view, I can’t see that the withdrawal of the UK [from the EU] would be favourable for any UK industries. It would isolate the UK economically. Every company would be forced to re-evaluate the implications of investing in the UK. It would no doubt have an impact on its ability to supply European markets”
Federation of Small Businesses
“The internal market offers easy access for first-time exporters with a market of 500 million customers and 23 million businesses on their doorstep. The internal market creates some legal certainty and a level playing field throughout competition rules and many harmonised rules. This means that businesses can save considerable cost when selling to EU countries.”
Scottish Whisky Association
“Sales of Scotch Whisky within the 27 EU Member States totalled more than half a billion bottles, or about 42% of the industry’s volumes. The EU is vital to the industry’s long term sustainability, both as an internal market and as a strong voice in international trade negotiations.”
Ford
“Don’t discuss leaving a trading partner where 50 per cent of your exports go, that would be devastating for the UK economy”
Siemens
“If we were not within the EU, Siemens would make it quite difficult for me to continue to invest in those factories.”
Tata Steel
“As the largest single market in the world, the EU has a strong bargaining position in trade negotiations. Conversely, on its own, as a relatively small market, the UK would not be as attractive for third countries to negotiate with and would not have the same bargaining power.”
BAE Systems Chief Executive
“Do I think it is the right thing for the UK to stay? Yes, to maintain the stability we have got.”
Bosideng UK
“As the UK re-examines its relationship with the European Union, we would certainly like to see the UK remain within the EU. Like us, a lot of other Chinese firms choose the UK as a base to address Europe as a whole, and the UK being in the EU certainly helps with that. If the UK withdrew, those investors might think again.”
AB Sugar
“It is particularly advantageous to operate within a trading bloc allowing the UK to have greater influence globally than might otherwise be the case.”
Deloitte
“The Europe debate does not help to create certainty. When I talk to US clients who have not been immersed in the European debate as we have, they say that what they need is clarity. There is no question it will impact business – it will hit investment into the UK.”
Honda
“Anything that weakens our ability to trade with the region would be detrimental to UK manufacturing…. There would have to be some penalty to being outside rather than inside that’s the risk I think.”
Hyundai
“Everything is much easier because of the single market, and if that scenario was changed it would make it more challenging.
Kingfisher
“Kingfisher is a steadfast supporter of the Single Market. As a pan European retailer with large operations in the UK, France, Spain and Poland and with joint ventures in Germany and Turkey, the company has a clear interest in the harmonisation of certain standards and legislation across the EU.”
CBI
“There are some who say that we could retain access to the single market without being a member of the EU; that the UK could withdraw and have a relationship more akin to Norway’s or Switzerland’s. I’d urge them to really look at the detail.”
Airbus
“Airbus Group, we note, would never have achieved its success to date without a working and effective partnership of countries and companies within Europe, which only collectively can deliver the scale required to be globally successful.”
Citigroup
“It’s not that international companies will stop investing in Britain, but their investment just won’t be at the scale we have become accustomed to”
Boticca.com
“One of the reasons we decided to set up Boticca in London is because its melting pot affords entrepreneurs immediate and easy access to the best European talent.”
BMW
“The UK not only has to be part of Europe. It has to be a fundamentally active part of Europe. To think about the UK being outside of Europe doesn’t make sense.”
Diageo
“We are a trading company. We must stay in Europe, we must position Europe for the future, which is more competitive, less regulation”
DHL Express
“If something went dramatically wrong with the trading relationships between the UK and the EU, it would affect us and a lot of businesses. If a parting regressed into protectionism towards the rest of Europe, then that would be a bad thing and a backward step.”
Goldman Sachs
“In all likelihood we would transfer a substantial part of our European business from London to a eurozone location – the most obvious contenders being Paris and Frankfurt.”
Hitachi
“The UK should be a member of the European Union from the standpoint of our operations. I had a meeting with the Prime Minister and I strongly requested him to do that. For Japanese businesses, the UK and the Continent are very complimentary.”
The minute you go away from the single market, you reduce the certainty”
JP Morgan
“The UK acts as a gateway to Europe for many financial institutions and corporates from around the world. Their establishment and subsequent growth in the UK is no coincidence but is linked to the country’s membership of the world’s largest single market, the European Union”
Lloyd’s
“Competence over international trade and investment negotiations should remain with the EU. The EU’s economic size and political influence give it substantial weight in the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreements with third countries.”
City of London Corporation
“The UK must remain a full part of the EU single market, while also continuing to have full access to the decision-making process that sets the rules for this single market.”
Automotive Council
“The Automotive Council believes that the UK’s active membership of the EU is an essential factor in the automotive industry’s current and future success.”
Sanofi
“The points outlined above clearly show the many benefits of the EU’s trade agenda. Member states gain from being part of the EU as it allows them to benefit from the preferential arrangements included in EU trade agreements.”
CityUK
“It is really poppycock to believe that the City can survive in its present form if it is not an integral part of the European financial services framework. London must have complete and unfettered access to the wholesale Euro markets”
British Retail Consortium
“Put simply, UK retailers get better terms of access to certain third country markets by virtue of their membership of the EU.”
EEF, UK manufacturers’ organisation
“The UK’s economic well-being is heavily linked to our biggest trading partner and we cannot afford to risk the disruption that leaving the EU would cause…… Rather than raising doubts about our future in Europe, the government should focus on making it work better for Britain.”
British Bankers’ Association
“The single market for financial services is a significant factor in the success of the UK as a financial centre and therefore of considerable value to the UK economy”
You really do fall for the europhile propaganda don’t you.?
You do realise that you sound suspiciously like a conspiracy theorist, I hope?
The word you were grasping for, but failed to come up with, was realist.
Conspiracy theorists always think they’re the only ones who can see the truth.
Truth deniers always try to slur those who recognise it.
Oh, get the tinfoil hat on quick! 😉
P.S. Thanks for all the blog hits. Every little helps!
Now why am I not surprised you have a tinfoil hat, you need to be careful you don’t cook yourself. You are welcome to the hits Paul I may not agree with you but I respect your setting up the Blog.
I do feel your pain, Barry, I honestly do, but you have a weak case.
A case you weaken further by throwing yourself out of your pram, deploying statistics ineffectively (still waiting for the provenance of your unemployment figures, by the way) and your praying in aid the usual anti EU propaganda peddled 24/7 by a distasteful cabal, comprising, amongst others Murdoch’s media interests; the Barclay Brothers’ representatives on Earth at the Daily Telegraph; the Northcliffe Daily Mail conglomerate (which has big interests in Eastern Europe, for example Bulgaria); Richard Desmond’s media group and Anthony ‘Nick Robinson’, the BBC’s Political Editor.
If UKIP tops the Euro Poll, it will show that UKIP has successfully persuaded a sizeable proportion of the UK electorate that it is safe to vote UKIP, because, according to UKIP, the European Parliament is just an impotent, talking shop. Vote UKIP for inaction in Europe to show that the EU does not work …
Perhaps if there was an EU referendum tomorrow, UKIP might be in with a chance, but it is years away, if at all and a majority of the business community (let alone organised labour, VCS, most of the public sector etc) wants to stay in. We have deep pockets and will dip into them to fund the campaign opposing withdrawal. The anti EU media will vacillate, like it has started to do in Scotland over the Yes Campaign. They may be viscerally opposed to the EU, but they are ever more reliant on advertising. They know which side their bread is buttered. And by the time of any referendum, we will of course be able to debate the umpteenth UKIP Manifesto. In addition, the longer we wait for a referendum, the fewer supporters UKIP will have, they are dying off as I type.
Your much overspent, cancelled EU subscription will be smaller than you think, if Scotland votes Yes. They are entitled to their share of the money, after all. Scotland sees a brave new future in developing its environmental business sector. A sector which it is predicted will create 100s of 1000s of jobs, many in manufacturing; reduce energy costs; enhance energy security through lessening reliance on oil and gas imports (which will improve the balance of trade too); and create technological, knowledge and energy exports. The hard headed men and women of business are salivating at the prospect of doing business and being international market leaders within and without the EU.
Why does UKIP hate the environmental business sector so? It ticks all the boxes and would provide good, well paid jobs for lots of people on low incomes. Ah, yes, the sector is supported by EU funding and is connected with the word, green. UKIP’s perverse ideology puts our involvement in the latest Industrial Revolution in jeopardy. And, before you start frothing at the mouth, the threat to the sector runs throughout UKIP’s own literature and its campaigns against renewable energy.
Your siding with media interests, who every day vilify the poor and those on social security suggests your care for the weakest in our society is less than skin deep. If you really cared about the masses, you would be calling for more EU spend in areas of high deprivation, not an end to it.
You say you are a realist, yet you believe that UK withdrawal from the EU would lead us into the Promised Land. Forgive me for thinking that, if anyone is deluded, it is those who unthinkingly put their faith in the likes of Nigel Farage, a(n expense account aficionado par excellence) carpetbagger, both in name and deed.
Take your whining, your faux sympathy and your .22 mind (in a .357 Magnum world) elsewhere. You are pathetic. I have worked with people looking for work for over 27 years, they do not need your crocodile tears and they do not care where the funding comes from, if it helps them improve their quality of life and that of their families. They are pragmatic.
Would you like to come and chat with some people in inner city Birmingham about how a UKIP Government and withdrawal from Europe would benefit them? If you take up my offer you would be braver than UKIP. They are not fielding candidates in Wards in inner city Birmingham.
I wonder why not? Could it be that UKIP’s policies do not appeal to people from diverse backgrounds, because, strangely, all of UKIP’s MEP candidates in the West Midlands are white, six out of the seven are male, six out of the seven are business people, the remaining one claims to be a full time carer.
In other words, the UKIP 7 look and read just like a right wing Tory slate. In fact,the full time carer underlines that view as he combines being a UKIP European and local election candidate with being the Black Country Coordinator of the Campaign Against Political Correctness and The (Libertarian) Freedom Association. Does that make him a realist, a pragmatist or the swivel eyed, evil twin of Don Quixote?
No good John trying to bore people to death with falsifications doesn’t work.
On May 22nd, a group of UKIP MEPs will be elected to the European Parliament.
They will go to Brussels and Strasbourg, safe in the knowledge that there will be no In/Out referendum during their five year term of office.
They will be free to max out their expenses credit cards (at our expense), do as little as humanly possible to represent their constituents and drink themselves silly, whilst laughing at the poor schmucks who got them elected.
You and your friends may be up for being fooled for the umpteenth time, but, do please credit the vast majority of the UK electorate with a bit more sense.
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time (unless they support UKIP).”
On may 22nd some conservative labour maybe a lib dem possibly some others will be elected from britain the other 92% will come from the other 27 nations They will go to brussells knowing that for the next 5 years they will achieve nothing other than repetitive stress injuries on their arms as they wave through edict after edict from the unelected committee without debate.
They will all enjoy a good life and get exactly the same allowance to spend on whatever they want to. MEP’s don’t get any expenses or cards to max out at our expense just the same amount for every single one of them.
You clearly have been fooled by anti ukip pro eussr propaganda but fortunatey as they say you can fool all of the people some of the time some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time, clearly you are in the some of the people all of the time bracket.
What falsifications?
I have not cited any statistics I could not evidence whilst you have declined to say where you found your unemployment figures.
Do please list and challenge my falsifications. Better still, come to inner city Birmingham and debate UKIP with people there who have been beneficiaries of ERDF and ESF spending.
The fact is, the more people learn about UKIP’s ethos, the less likely they are to vote for it. And people like me are more than happy to spread the word about what a disaster UKIP would be for our society and economy.
Strangely enough the people from inner city Birmingham are more sensible than you rather nasty vision off them says, they like most people in Britain realise ethat the eussr does not give us any money at all, we are net contributors it is our own money paid for by our tax payers, and we subsidise parasite nations, which until 2005 included France and meanwhile our most Vulnerable are being demonised because we can’t spend the money on our own people, hence hospital closures and vicious sanctions being applied to the needy. The fact is the the more people learn about the eussr, and they won’t get that from the conlablibdum coalition the more they are turning to UKIP as the only chance of regaining governance of their own nation.
Hi Barry!
UKIP declines to contest on 22/5/14 ten out of 40 Wards up for grabs in Birmingham. I guess they must be too well educated, cultured and young at heart to be taken in by UKIP’s propaganda?
UKIP had no Councillors in Birmingham before 22/5/14 and has none now.
Thanks for helping Labour to increase its majority on the Council!
Kind regards,
John.
Hardly surprising UKIP doesn’t have the money to spend that the old parties have.
Paul Nuttal UKIP MEP says otherwise. He wants NHS fully exposed to the free market.
Leaving the EU will save us little or no tax revenue. Have you found any way of overturning my analysis of the actual budget figures (as opposed to your wishful thinking)?
Farage lied, he promised the voters that UKIP’s manifesto would be out on Friday 23rd May 2014 after UKIP surged the day before. I guess no surge meant no triumphal launch?
Labour already has a growing set of policies that it, unlike UKIP, is not afraid to put before the voters.
UKIP is running scared and your spinning, on its behalf, is proof positive of that fact.
By the way, ready to share the source of your dodgy unemployment figures?
And how do you like being described as being poorly educated, uncultured and (c)old at heart by various UKIP spokespeople?
And whilst we are on the subject of being deluded. When has a senior UKIP figure:
called for urgent reform of the ESA/WCA process, that has brought death and misery to so many since May 2010?
called for a scaling back of the JSA sanctions regime?
called for a return to effective, proven support to help people into work (other than standing for UKIP to max out on expenses claims)?
called for the scrapping of the Work Programme?
called for an end for contracting out within the public sector?
urged the Government to do more to ensure that peope in receipt of social security payments, tax credits etc get all of the money to which they are entitled?
urged the Government to make serious efforts to increase take up of social security, tax credits etc?
urged the Government to scale back DWP’s fraud efforts and transfer the freed up resources to tackle tax fraud and alegal tax avoidance?
urged the Government to scrap Universal Credit?
urged the Government to return Universal Jobsmatch to its default settings?
challenged the Government over it’s policy of Digital by Default?
campaigned against the introduction of PIP?
campaigned against the introduction of the bedroom tax?
campaigned against the change in the status of Council Tax?
campaigned about the various caps, reductions etc across the social security system, including changes to the Social Fund?
campaigned against the vilification of the working poor and those on social security?
In fact, which senior UKIP figure has said that they are opposed to the general thrust of the current Government’s welfare reform agenda?
Well you won’t get it from the coalition or labour who are all equally responsible for its inception, who in those three parties has ever been against it after all in the name of austerity we are all in it together unless you are rich or an MP, who not only increased their incomes by a staggering 111/2 % whilst for the 5th consecutive year nurses got what equates to a pay reduction, and then when they brought in new pension laws for all, they exempted themselves from the changes which will affect us all, now then tell me again why are you so anti UKIP who haven’t been responsible for any of the problems you are complaining about. Now on the subject of being deluded…..
Why am I against UKIP?
The £77 billion more of cuts Farage says he would undertake, if UKIP won a General Election and UKIP’s plan to privatise the NHS.
That is proving more than enough for a lot of natural Labour and Liberal Democrats waverers on the doorstep.
And we have 11 months in which to point out how UKIP is nothing more, but nothing less than an organised hypocrisy, scared of putting its definitive manifesto before the voters.
Farage now plans to launch his manifesto in September, despite promising it would be out on Friday 23rd May.
UKIP does not deliver on its promises!
Why do you make this stuff up, UKIP has never stated it would privatise the NHS, UKIP would save the nation the cost of being in the eussr that is where the savings would come from. and which other party has released it’s manifesto that they said would be out on may 23rd they don’t keep their promises. In fact the later it is released the better so that the other parties don’t steal the ideas.
UKIP chose to contest Wards in Birmingham that it could not win, four of them in one of the most affluent constituencies outside of London and the South East.
In ten of some of the poorest Wards in Birmingham, UKIP was scared to put across policies that it claims address the concerns of the people who live in those areas. Perhaps they were deemed to be too clever to be UKIP supporters?
UKIP has a number of millionaire backers, some even in the City of London, Mr Farage’s old stumping ground.
Have you got a job as one of UKIP’s online spin doctors, yet?