Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
I think Guy Verhorfstadt had it when he mentioned a two-speed Europe but why only two speeds? It could be three, four or even varimatic.
It is likely that the original six member states would want closer integration, perhaps to the point of being a federal state. Others might be less keen and want a looser relationship. There is essentially a continuum between absolute autonomy/sovereignty at one end of the scale and completely pooled sovereignty with all its associated benefits at the other. I'd like to think that all nations can either individually or collectively find a sensible point between those two extremes, especially the UK, where the debate is binary and extreme. The essential is that greater benefits come with greater commitment and you cannot have one without the other.
I agree that the punitive agenda associated with keeping member states in the tightest of orbits has to go and I fail to see why Cameron's demands in February 2016 were not met as they were perfectly reasonable. The UK taxpayer should not be liable for welfare payments to the dependents, living in their home country, of EU nationals working in the UK The ECJ agreed with his position in early June 2016 but that piece of news was buried under the noise floor of the referendum campaign.
Regarding the EU budget we have to have a sense of proportionality. The UK's contribution is less than 0.5% of its GDP (or just over 1% of fiscal revenue) and less than its voluntary budget for overseas aid (0.7%). Administration represents about 6% of the EU budget total.
Every year HMRC provides PAYE taxpayers with a breakdown on how their taxes were spent. Our EU contributions are at the bottom of the list with things like social security and the NHS at the top. A person on a modal average income pays about 80p a week to the EU.
Not paying that 80p isn't going to make any difference to your quality of life but losing the benefits associated with it will definitely have an adverse impact.
If you travel to the continent on holiday each year, your travel insurance alone will increase by more than your annual contribution to EU funds with the so-called 'clean break' from the EU.
Is it possible/worth it to streamline the workings of the EU? Can savings be made?
I could save £450 per year by not renewing my vehicle and driver licences to be a taxi driver. I would be free from all the bureaucracy, rules and regulations imposed by my local authority. I would then have a choice between plying for hire illegally or delivering fast food for £30 a night minus expenses but at least I'd be free.
Perhaps my local council could be more efficient and reduce my fees. They are not permitted by law to make a profit. I could get licensed by Wolverhampton Council and pay £225 per year and work for U*** 10 or 20 miles from where I live. I'd be working 90 hours per week just to keep my head above water but at least I'd be free to work any 90 hours I chose instead of working to a fixed rota of 40 hours determined by agreement with my local firm.
If the European Parliament didn't move between Strasbourg and Brussels, how much would that save in percentage terms?
What would the political cost be?
If we cut the salaries of MEPs and Commissioners, how much would that save?
Would we still be able to recruit the brightest and best to ensure competence? We need EU legislation which is fit for purpose.
I'm sure with efficiencies we could bring that 6% down to 5. The same could be said for Whitehall but that doesn't seem quite so controversial because it is waste by our own pen pushers and not by Johnny Foreigner.
We could have austerity in the EU and cut structural funds to the poorest regions. Some of those regions are in the UK....
Surely, if these poorer regions are inside the same internal market as ourselves, it benefits us in the long run to bring them up to the same level. If our partners are more prosperous they become a bigger market for our goods and services and we theirs. Former Eastern Bloc countries will not be net beneficiaries for ever. Have you seen their growth rates over the last 20 years?
In terms of political reform I'd like to see the role of the European Commission reduced to that of a civil service. I'd like to see the European Parliament become a bicameral legislature instead. This may cost more but it could be worth it. What price democracy?
The lower house could sit in Strasbourg and the higher in Brussels, or vice versa. Select committees of elected MEPs could be formulating policy at the the behest of the European Council instead of their appointees at the Commission.
The possibilities are endless. The problem is that greater democratic accountability and closer integration go hand in hand. British eurosceptics back in the 1980s and 90s objected to increasing the role of the European Parliament. The same eurosceptics today complain of lack of democracy. This is a contradiction.
Would you rather a law imposed on you that you didn't like by your own government or one that you did like agreed in cooperation (collaberationl) with Johnny Foreigner?
Move away from the sphere of the institutions within the EU, whatever form they may take now and in the future, and you either lose the benefits or a say in those benefits.
The cake either goes in your mouth or it stays on the plate.
One last thing: if you really are bothered by perceived profligacy in Brussels/Strasbourg, stop reading the Express/Mail/Telegraph. I guarantee that in time you will stop giving a shit.
