The Benefits of Being inThe EU

[Cesarz]

What exactly are the benefits of any country being a member of the European Union. So far as I can see, there are none.
From what I can see, nations simply give the EU money whih is then used to... do what exactly? Fund projects in OTHER countries?

[Denny Crane!]

Free trade, if that was possible without being in the EU we'd be out faster than George Michael in a closet.

[Cesarz]

Free trade, if that was possible without being in the EU we'd be out faster than George Michael in a closet.

You mean, there aren't other free trade unions such as EFTA?

[DaVinci]

The title is misleading according to your OP.

You must change it to "..benefits for the UK ...", then it might be right, according to your statement in your OP (which is imo. an indifferentiated view nonetheless, but i understand, it is a question).

Edit: Ok, the OP text has been changed, he now asks in general.

[Denny Crane!]

You mean, there aren't other free trade unions such as EFTA?

Adopting a Nordic position comes with basically all the same ties and obligations but with zero influence so not quite sure how that is a viable or smart option perhaps you can explain it to me?

[Cesarz]

Adopting a Nordic position comes with basically all the same ties and obligations but with zero influence so not quite sure how that is a viable or smart option perhaps you can explain it to me?

Well, I wasn't really proposing joining EFTA instead, I was just giving an example of another Free Trade Union. I don't know much about the EFTA.
However, do the EFTA members (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechenstein) give millions to the EFTA central authority?
Does the EFTA lumber the member states with laws and restrictions which benefit almost nobody?

Influence in what exactly? The world or Europe?

[Denny Crane!]

Well, I wasn't really proposing joining EFTA instead, I was just giving an example of another Free Trade Union. I don't know much about the EFTA.
However, do the EFTA members (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechenstein) give millions to the EFTA central authority?
Does the EFTA lumber the member states with laws and restrictions which benefit almost nobody?

Influence in what exactly? The world or Europe?

Norway as a case study has accepted all the regulation and legislation the Uk has, pays the same proportionally but has no influence over the things it always accepts unlike the Uk.

[Rolling Thunder]

Hypothetically, a cross-EU fund would be able to achieve much better economies of scale and fund much more impressive projects: I.e. serious research on nuclear fusion - if the political will was there.

[Adar]

Personally I think that the Nordic community should have been used as a role model for the EU. A high level of economic integration and freedom of movement but a strict respect for national sovereignty.

Hypothetically, a cross-EU fund would be able to achieve much better economies of scale and fund much more impressive projects: I.e. serious research on nuclear fusion - if the political will was there.

Actually, we are already doing that.

The problem is that the French are doing it so inefficiently that the join EU research budget is threatened by this black hole of costs.

The Spiegel online
The planned ITER fusion reactor in France is supposed to replicate conditions inside the Sun to produce limitless clean energy. But skyrocketing costs are putting the international project at risk. Now Germany's research minister has said Berlin will not write a blank check for the technology.

Need for Fresh Cash
Originally, the futuristic reactor was supposed to cost around €5 billion ($6.15 billion). That was the figure given in 2006 when the participating partners -- the European Union member states, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States -- agreed to fund the project. The Europeans were supposed to shoulder 40 percent of the costs, with the remaining partners taking on 9 percent each. But a recent estimate by the European Commission has revealed that the total costs have already tripled to €15 billion, as a result of higher raw material prices and new safety requirements, among other expenses.
The Europeans alone would have to provide €7.2 billion, and further increases in costs cannot be ruled out. But where is the money supposed to come from? Officials in Brussels have drawn up two scenarios: Either member states must inject fresh cash directly, or the EU's research budget will have to be increased by the required amount. Ideally, the eurocrats would like to have a kind of blank check, whereby member states would already guarantee to cover additional future costs.
Each of the scenarios would mean a sharp increase in Germany's contribution, which could reach as much as €1 billion, instead of the originally agreed €540 million. Now Germany's research minister, Annette Schavan, has spoken out against the burgeoning costs. "It's normal for research projects to have increases in costs, but a rise of 300 percent is unusual and not acceptable," Schavan said Wednesday at a meeting of EU research ministers in Brussels.
"ITER is a very important project for Europe," Schavan stressed, adding that the project could not be put at risk for that reason. She called for greater transparency: "We need different management, and we need a clear outlook."
Schavan also rejected the idea of a "blank check" for the project. "We can't pass a resolution which simply says we want (the project) and we will see later how it can be financed," she said Wednesday. In light of the "unusually difficult situation in all national budgets," member states must be able to stem the costs, she added.
Downsizing the Project
According to sources in the Research Ministry, the German government wants to keep as many options for energy production open as possible -- and it still favors fusion research. But Schavan warned ahead of Wednesday's meeting that the government would not support fusion research "at any price." Berlin now wants a new approach to financing the reactor, which would be drawn up by the European Commission. Schavan has indicated that the reactor design might have to be revised. That could mean, for example, that the project will end up being significantly smaller than currently planned.

So yes the will is there but not the ability to manage it effectively.


From personal experience I am also hugely negative of EU funded projects because of their excessive bureaucracy. As a researcher you always have to worry about not receiving your reimbursements and even if you do get them. You know that the EU is going to spend just as much money on testing your claims as they are actually giving you.


Essentially it is a real life example of Kafka to get things done correctly. Minor issues as paying for a conference dinner were one attendant didn't attend, but you had already prepaid for all attendants, can take several hours of e-mail correspondence and phone calls to sort out.


At least I am doing Bioinformatics so I got minimal issues with ethical committees, but my friends who have to deal with them can look pretty suicidal at a certain time each year.

[SLN445]

Needs to unite into one giant unified country with a dual England and Germany at its head

[dogukan]

More stability and wider integration-comes at the cost of bigger potential problems.
However the way I see it, economic globalization will eventually lead to further "global integration" organizations of various kinds.

[Denny Crane!]

Shame about the federalistic aims, the Euro disaster is the consequence of that. Rational implementation of that would have involved currency unions between a few perhaps even just germany and france and a slow decades long expansion to the most stable economies and at the last the weaker ones as an evolution rather than a bloody farce.

[Rolling Thunder]

With any luck it can still be salvaged. Cut Greece adrift, impose more stringent measures and pray for recovery.

[Condottiere 40K]

It's the Common Market; no trade barriers, no tariffs, quality standardizations, free movement and in theory the sum is greater than the parts in international relationships.

[florin87]

reduced crime rates and smaller number of inmates, as all your con-men, beggars and thieves will migrate to the richer member states. granted this only applies to new members like romania.

[saglam2000]

I suppose if the EU got it's together and centralized some more then Europe can actually lead the world again as a unified nation. Sadly nationalists prefer having their tiny nations for whatever reasons.

[Azog 150]

Effectively and democratically rule more then 500,000,000 people through a centralised state? I don't think so. I already have enough problems with the UK, a country of 62,00,000 people, being too heavily centralised.

[saglam2000]

Effectively and democratically rule more then 500,000,000 people through a centralised state? I don't think so. I already have enough problems with the UK, a country of 62,00,000 people, being too heavily centralised.

I never said centralized state, the EU needs to centralize some more to the point of a federal republic. Each nation = state, United States of Europe.

[The Despondent Mind]

Ask Bulgarian people

[Ojf]

Can anyone please provide some sources that suggest the economic benefits of being in the EU make it worth paying the premium membership fee(for the uk)?