Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blank_frackis
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Britannist
Perhaps some EU country is getting benefits from trade with Nicaragua on the condition that it gets the EU to give Nicaragua 'aid' in return.
One thing's for sure, it won't be this country. The EU wouldn't give aid to a non-EU nation if the giving of that money helped the UK.
|
These are the sorts of posts that just confuse me, the UK is a part of the EU, when the "EU" makes a decision it includes the UK and not much due to our size and importance (I'll get the voting records out again if you like) is done against the wishes of the UK government. |
It doesn't confuse most people - they understand as easy as 1, 2, 3 that the EU gives far more aid to nations on its periphery to influence events there (on 'its border') than it does to Commonwealth countries which are mostly further away. Most nations near the EU border who had european rulers once tend to be ones which were controlled by continental EU nations, some of whom receive EU 'aid' (as a way of the EU trying to get them to stop their nationals coming into the EU area in search of work and/or benefits). Consequently ex-British colonies around the globe get less money from the EU than ex-French ones do.
It should also be pointed out for those who don't know, that the UK is required to give a third of its international aid budget to the EU each year. This means that we have no say on how that money is spent once the EU gets its hands on it. Although Blank Frackis will soon be telling us that how lucky we are - we have a vote comprising 8% of the total in the EU on how hundreds of millions of Pounds of our money is spent on EU aid!
The EU has just given aid to Mauritania as part of a new fishing arrangement (which is probably illegal by the way). Mauritania is not a former British colony. The UK could not stop this decision by the EU, even if it wanted to.
As for the claim (above) that little gets passed in the EU which is against the wishes of the British Government. We didn't want to give more money to the EU in December 2005, but Blair (negotiating on the UK contribution to the 2007 -13 EU budget) felt he had to cave in and cough up more cash). Do you think, Blank Frackis, that the UK Government wanted to do this?
There are over 100, 000 EU rules, regulations and directives - most of which the UK has been powerless to stop (most were passed after we joined the EEC/EU). Businesses in the UK certainly don't want those costly and meddlesome EU Directives - but it is not possible for the democratically elected UK Government to stop them. And all future British Governments have to obey these 100, 000 EU rules and directives as long as we stay in the EU. This means that future Governments of the UK will not be able to pass legislation in many areas because it would conflict with EU rules it (the new Government) will have inherited from the outgoing UK Government.
The areas where the UK can stop the EU doing anything are declining as each new British Government gives away our remaining vetos in shabby deals with the bullies who run the EU.
The UK has little influence and virtually no say in how the EU is run.
Anyone who can't see this doesn't understand the EU and is probably a europhile who does not want to see the truth.