One crazy trick to avoid extension

[Javert]

That's the costs of running the parliament divided by the number of MEPs.  :hattip

What about the cost of other parliaments around the world?  How does it compare?  Just quoting the cost on its own doesn't mean a lot without something to compare it to.



That said, I think the fact that they have 2 separate buildings and decamp from one to the other regularly is a bit ridiculous and unnecessary - I'm not sure what the reasons are for that.

[Barry]

But each MEP isn't paid 2.3million Euros.  You yourself quoted their salary above?

That's the costs of running the parliament divided by the number of MEPs.  :hattip

[Javert]

Sorry, 2.3 million €uros per MEP

But each MEP isn't paid 2.3million Euros.  You yourself quoted their salary above?

[BeElBeeBub]

So nobody was able to live and work in the rest of Europe before the mighty EU? I was travelling and working around Europe in the 80's with no hassle what so ever, all the EU has done is write down in a treaty what was already happening, so no, this is not a product of the EU.

Of course people did.



However your rights to live and work in the member states now are greater and more enforceable than the 80's.

[BeElBeeBub]

The things you mention were in place when it was the Common Market, the transition to political monster was not needed to have free trade deals.



So again, what is the benefit of the EU?

The EU was created by the Maastricht treaty, signed in 1992 and coming into force in late 93.



The single market officially came into force on 1Jan 1993 with important pieces like worker directive (96) Schengen (97) and services (2006) coming later.



The frictions that were present in 92 are greater than those today.



The level.of integration and size of the current single market was not (and would not be) available with just the pre 92 relationships.

[Barry]

Sorry, 2.3 million €uros per MEP

[Javert]

Yes, Javert, there is an argument for trading using common standards, preferably good ones. However, does this really necessitate another level of government with around 750 MEPs taking more than €105,000 a year in salaries alone, with actual costs coming out at 2.3 billion €uros per MEP?

Total cost around €1,756,000,000 each year, all borne by the taxpayer, as the EU does not actually have any money of its own.



Takes some justification, that!

What's this 2.3 billion euros per MEP?  Again, I suspect you have been reading articles that put numbers together that don't go together adding 2 and 2 to make 6.



The cost number is irrelevant unless you compare it to the benefits, and also unless you compare it to the total combined GDP of all the countries concerned.



You also cannot take the entire EU budget and divide it by the number of MEPs in the EU parliament as the budget is used for many other things besides paying MEPs.



If those activities weren't done by MEPs they would be done but others who would be paid just as much - for example, the UK will need to employ a lot of expensive experts to do the jobs that EU employees previously did for just the UK.



If it shouldn't be elected MEPs, you could use the same argument for the UK - why waste all this money paying MPs when we could just have a dictator making all the decisions?

[Barry]

Yes, Javert, there is an argument for trading using common standards, preferably good ones. However, does this really necessitate another level of government with around 750 MEPs taking more than €105,000 a year in salaries alone, with actual costs coming out at 2.3 billion €uros per MEP?

Total cost around €1,756,000,000 each year, all borne by the taxpayer, as the EU does not actually have any money of its own.



Takes some justification, that!

[Javert]

Everything you outlined was happening or possible under the EEC/Common Market. Don't need the political monster that came to stay.

No it wasn't - again, the question would be, why create the single market if it was just doing the same as the EEC - again, you are proposing that all of the leaders of all European nations in the EU and all of their experts and advisers, every single one of them for the last 40 years, has been so stupid that they are throwing away time and money on setting up something that is completely useless and a total waste of money with no benefits whatsoever.  Again, why would they do that?



The reason for the single market is to move towards a way of converging regulations, creating as much regulatory alignment as possible.  This is needed if you want to harmonise markets to reduce not only trade and tariff barriers, but also remove regulatory barriers to trade.  



The reason for introducing elements of democratic governance into this process, is that if you want to streamline and harmonise those regulations, you are effectively asking each member state to change their rules and laws in certain areas to make them the same across all states, in an ongoing an continuous evolving process.  You could do this by simply having lots and lots of treaties which would be agreed one by one, but if you want this to be a continuous process, it's more effective to set up a separate supra national organisation to do it.  



Since this organisation will be participating in decision making for certain limited areas of law making which will impact on all the nations, it was deemed appropriate to create a democratic mandate for this organisation, otherwise it really would be unelected bureaucrats making the rules.



Without the single market (which was actually mainly the UKs idea in the first place), you cannot have the same level of removal of non trade barriers from a regulatory point of view.



It's simply incorrect to state that the EEC delivered all the same benefits.  You could argue that you didn't need the European parliament and it could have just been done by the EU administrators, but that would be subject to rightful criticism of a lack of democratic accountability.

[Nick]

Being a member of the SMCU (admittedly possible without being an EU member) make providing an "invisible" border between NI and RoI very much simpler.



The only other way to do so would be for RoI to leave the EU and enter a SMCU with the UK.



This would require one of two things:



Either the RoI will have a day in the running of the UK (trade deals, product regulations, judicial overnight etc)



Or the RoI would have to give up control of those areas to the UK (or vice versa).



Neither of which would appear to be politically acceptable to either party.

There has only ever been a border in Ireland for one reason  and it was nothing to do with trade. The EU has had nothing to do with it apart from confusing the issue.



Having any kind of border / trade deal would not be dependent on the EU, it could be done quite easily.

[Nick]

EU membership gives UK citizens far greater rights to live and work in other member states than is likely outside the EU.



It is extremely improbable that UK citizens will have the same rights once we leave.

So nobody was able to live and work in the rest of Europe before the mighty EU? I was travelling and working around Europe in the 80's with no hassle what so ever, all the EU has done is write down in a treaty what was already happening, so no, this is not a product of the EU.

[Nick]

The reduction of trade friction between members resulting in greater economic activity for all is an unarguable benefit.



You may complain that the benefits of the greater economic activity are not worth the trade offs required but that doesn't mean it isn't a benefit.



The Single market and Customs union go beyond any other trade agreement in existence and you could not replicate it's benefits without a similar level of trade off.

The things you mention were in place when it was the Common Market, the transition to political monster was not needed to have free trade deals.



So again, what is the benefit of the EU?

[Sheepy]

Being a member of the SMCU (admittedly possible without being an EU member) make providing an "invisible" border between NI and RoI very much simpler.



The only other way to do so would be for RoI to leave the EU and enter a SMCU with the UK.



This would require one of two things:



Either the RoI will have a day in the running of the UK (trade deals, product regulations, judicial overnight etc)



Or the RoI would have to give up control of those areas to the UK (or vice versa).



Neither of which would appear to be politically acceptable to either party.

Would that be in the same adult way,the EU takes it when democracy rears its head?

[BeElBeeBub]

Strangely no one has managed to come up with the benefits the EU solely bring.

Being a member of the SMCU (admittedly possible without being an EU member) make providing an "invisible" border between NI and RoI very much simpler.



The only other way to do so would be for RoI to leave the EU and enter a SMCU with the UK.



This would require one of two things:



Either the RoI will have a day in the running of the UK (trade deals, product regulations, judicial overnight etc)



Or the RoI would have to give up control of those areas to the UK (or vice versa).



Neither of which would appear to be politically acceptable to either party.

[BeElBeeBub]

Strangely no one has managed to come up with the benefits the EU solely bring.

EU membership gives UK citizens far greater rights to live and work in other member states than is likely outside the EU.



It is extremely improbable that UK citizens will have the same rights once we leave.