Its methodology is to take 20,000 of the 24,000 daily deaths from starvation and attribute them to general poverty (with the other 4,000 attributed to crop failure and war. Given that most starvation is caused by crop failure and war, this seems weird). It then assumes that, because the EU accounts for about a third of trade protectionism, the EU is therefore responsible for a third of those 20,000 deaths.

It fails to demonstrate (as opposed to assert) that trade protectionism is responsible for starvation, which one might think was quite an important logical step when producing such a report…

“So massive subsidies to the very wealthy; paid for by those less well off through regressive taxation and higher prices for food, which also has the side effect of creating protectionist barriers stopping the third world trading with us and therefore helping to keep the globally poorest people in poverty is “not really worth giving a fuck about”.”

Basically, yes. It’s a mildly nasty piece of corporate welfare, but so trivial compared to tax credits that just, whatever. And the “ooh, we’re starving the third world” stuff is absolute bollocks, as Dan Davies regularly points out and never gets refuted beyond ranty toss.

“The EU commission’s own figures show that we would be better off out of the common market than in it.”

I like Tim W, count him as a friend and am glad the world has him in it.

However, the suggestion that the cost of complying with all business regulation throughout the EU in the world ever can sanely be equated with the benefits of the EU single market is obviously toss since – just as people are doing in this thread – it ignores the fact that *of course we’d have government regulation of business*, we’ve had it since William the Conqueror made a big book of land to work out how much people had so he could work out how much to tax them…

Note to Chris: fuck off back under your bridge and never come back.

Note to everyone else: the toss about ‘ooh, those Spics and their boats’ is, as I’ve just indicated, toss. Spain is the country to have cut the size and tonnage of its fishing fleet the most on the grounds that – guess what? – there aren’t any fucking fish anymore.

2. The EU commission’s own figures show that we would be better off out of the common market than in it. Not that that is much of a surprise, the Liberals won the argument against protectionism over a century and a half ago. Shame we are now stuck in a protectionist bloc where it is not even our industries that are being protected! All the pain and none of the gain.

3. Some industries are being actively destroyed through EU incompetence, fishing for instance. It is not impossible to create a fisheries management policy that actually works most of the time, Norway, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland all have one however the Common Fisheries Policy can’t really be thought of as anything less than insane with its requirement that dead fish be thrown back into the sea in the hope that they will magically come back to life. The incompetence is such that while most countries are having their fishing rights cut and cut again some, notably Spain, are actually being subsidised to build bigger and more efficient boats. The EU’s fishing policy has turned the North Sea, which used to have the best fishing grounds in Europe, into an ecological disaster zone. This means that they are forced to put in place restrictions that are driving many British fishermen out of business, yet at the same time the EU is subsidising the construction of bigger and better Spanish boats in a perfect example of Grey’s Law.

If we want to play that game, wouldn’t we be better off joining a transnational bully that actually has enough guns to back up its policies?

In terms of ‘not conditions of EEA membership’, erm, perhaps not *formally*…

“Switzerland provides these contributions autonomously (it determines the selection of projects, etc.). Its contributions are not part of the EU’s cohesion policy. The period during which contributions for projects can be approved will extend over the next five years (obligation period). Experience indicates that the period during which payment are made will stretch over a period of approximately TEN years.”

So it is roughly ten years and these payments are not conditions of EEA membership. This seems to imply it is closer to a form of voluntary foreign aid. Which is fair enough. I would love Britain to have a relationship with the EU like that.

Really? Is anyone else?

John, the language of the quoted article is a little obtuse, but the figure appears to be for payments made over the next ten years. So… yes?

…for now.

“Agriculture is 1% of GDP, which falls definitively into the “not really worth giving a fuck about” bracket.”

Unless you are poor and care about food prices. It is the 1% that no one can do without!

Except that we wouldn’t, because realistically if you’re trading goods into the UK you’re also trading with the rest of Europe (remember, Ireland isn’t in the UK and would remain in the EU…) and the last thing you want is to bugger about with two different sets of rules.

“as will the ability to import food from whoever we choose and to set our own agricultural policy.”

Agriculture is 1% of GDP, which falls definitively into the “not really worth giving a fuck about” bracket.

Sorry, can someone explain to me what ‘EU’ and ‘British’ mean in the context of law?

I thought it was a matter of whether the code derived from common law or roman law.

Personally I see these disputes continuing because rule by consent and rule by force are principles which combine with different applications in different contexts. I also think a state of tension between the two systems is a healthy thing for global politics.

If we were to leave the EU, we’d be in the same boat. Yes, in theory we could impose divergent standards on goods and services sold into the EU compared with those which weren’t, but that would be insane: all exporters will have to comply with EU regulations anyway (and all imported goods will also comply with them, because you’ll load the same goods into the container ship in Shanghai to unload in Rotterdam and Southampton); some kind of regulatory system is required unless you’re a demented libertoonian; and the EU system is nowhere near suboptimal enough for it to be worth developing our own in parallel. So we wouldn’t – we’d be Switzerland or Norway, following EU rules without any influence over what happens (whereas at the moment we vie with Germany and France for ‘most influential member’.

On democracy: the Commission are chosen by democratically elected national governments (who chooses the Chancellor or the Home Secretary in the UK? Clue: not a referendum); and the legislature has the power to amend and veto legislation, remove the Commission, and control the budget.

(and the Mexico free trade agreement isn’t really one – it’s a ‘not quite as restricted as before trade’ agreement)

Regarding Mexico, it seems that they are substantially outside of many EU regulations – a blueprint for a British Eurosceptic free trade agreement?

http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN19.htm