Britain’s place in the EU: statement of intent In my article I will try to identify whether or not the UK is stronger, or weaker in the EU. I will approach this question fairly, and try to present evidence for both arguments. I will also try and explore the growing anti EU sentiment growing in England.
For my primary research I designed a questionnaire with 3 questions and asked 20 people to answer them. The three questions are:
1. Do you Britain is better off in or out pf the European Union?
Option A. yes B.no
2. If not why?
Option A. immigration. B. sovereignty / make our own laws independently. C. Other- elaborate
3. If yes why? A. Immigration B. Human rights C. crime D. Weight on the world stage
Answers to question 1: A. 11 B. 9
Answers to question 2: A. 7 B. 2 C. 0
Answer to question 3: A.2 B. 1 C. 3 D.5
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20448450 My first resource comes from the BBC. This resource is helpful to me because it gives me brief overviews of the argument. It also provides me a template to begin my investigation from. Resources on EU immigration My first resource is an anti immigration argument from the telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9959813/Britain-cant-afford-this-level-of-immigration.html This article is helpful to me because it provides a few strong reasonable arguments, such as:
- Net migration per year has risen from 50,000 in 1997, to 250,000 in 2010. At the rate our population (70 million in the next 15 years) is growing we will need to build a city the size of Manchester, or Liverpool or Oxford to accommodate the increase- which just isn’t affordable.
- Our need for highly skilled immigrants for economic growth should not be conflated with mass immigration.
- 1 million 18-24 year olds are out of work- which simply doesn’t justify the need for an immigrant boost.
- The EU won’t allow us to have control over EU areas when it comes to immigration.
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/484397/EU-immigration-means-elderly-cannot-see-doctor http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/10550335/UK-has-fewer-doctors-per-person-than-Bulgaria-and-Estonia.html These two resources are also helpful, and also anti immigration. The first source is an anecdotal source. It’s designed to appeal to emotions, while that makes me less inclined to use it, I feel a point is still being raised from it. That point being that the UK doesn’t have enough GP’s. Which brings me to my second source. according to the source, the UK has 2.71 practicing doctors for every 1000 people. This puts the UK lower than Bulgaria and Estonia on a list of European GPs per country- where we rank 24th out of 27. Which is actually an increase from the year 2000, where we had 1.9 doctors per 1000 people. Although these resources don’t outright prove are lack of doctors is a direct result of EU immigration, it does heavily imply it.
Now for some pro European immigration arguments: http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf%5D This source is incredibly helpful to me. It’s full of facts and tables which could aid me greatly such as:
just short of 19% of native households were living in social housing(last row, panel (a)). Although immigrants overall are slightly more likely to live insocial housing (by 2 percentage points), stark differences again emerge between non-EEA immigrants, who are over 3 percentage points more likely to live in social housing,and EEA immigrants, who are almost 3 percentage points less likely to do so. Thisdifference, however, may be attributable to immigrants being predominantly located inurban areas, especially London, where social housing is far more widespread than inthe rest of the country. In fact, on average, over the years 1995–2011, London washome to 33% of EEA and 44% of non-EEA immigrant households, compared to justunder 9% of natives.”
the overall contributions of recent A10immigrants amounted to £5 billion, those of recent immigrants from the other EEAcountries to £15 billion and those of recent non-EEA immigrants to over £5 billion.
Interestingly, even throughout the crisis years 2007–2011, recent A10 immigrants madea net contribution of almost £2 billion to UK public finances, while recent immigrantsfrom the other EEA countries made a positive contribution of £8.6 billion. In Figure 2(b), which reports the revenues/expenditures ratio of each immigrant group (RRE) relative to that of natives, the difference for non-EEA immigrants is larger in the first years, reduces slightly over time, and then remains substantial throughoutthe period. Even in 2011, the revenues/expenditures ratio of recent non-EEAimmigrants is 15% higher than that for natives”This resource is more than enough to present a reasoned argument for EU immigration.This resource could potentially make or break my pro European argument.One more resource on immigration is this more neutral source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums/compendium-of-uk-statistics/population-and-migration/index.htmlThis resource is helpful because it tells me that the UK population is set to rise 0.6% per annual year.This resource is great when presenting a pro European argument, it gives me a fact that will prove to be a great pro EU ally. around 35% of are NHS staff come from out side the EU.Economical benefits and drawbacks
- This resource is helpful because it shows me that the UK is putting more money into the EU than it is getting invested back into the country, by the EU. 2007: £13.1 billion contributed, £5.2 billion invested.
- Their is also the cost of “over regulation”.
“It is estimated that 84% of new laws now originate in the European Union rather than nationalParliaments.This was a figure arrived at by former German President Roman Hertzog in astudy undertaken for the German parliament. In the absence of a study by HM Governmentit is reasonable to suppose that a similar figure is also true for Britain.According to the British Chamber of Commerce Burdens Barometer here are just a fewexamples of EU regulation and its impact on the British economy.The Working-Time Regulation 1999, which implemented the infamous Working TimeDirective, is clearly the biggest burden costing UK businesses £1.795 billion a year. Thecumulative cost of the Working Time Directive is put at £16 billion.The Vehicle Excise Duty Regulation 2000, which implemented the EU PollutionDirective 98/69/EC: these cost British businesses £1.225 billion per year. The cumulativecost of the Vehicle Excise Duty Regulation is put at £9.2 billion.The Data Protection Bill, which implements the EU Date Protection Directive, costsBritish businesses £667 million per year. The cumulative cost is put at £7.348 billion.No one would seriously suggest that business should be unregulated. However it should
be the democratically elected and accountable British Parliament that should decide what is a fit and proper level of regulation on business, not the undemocratic and unaccountableEuropean Union.”This source is helpful because it gives me an example of EU trying to shove it’s authority down peoples throats.This resource is a pro Europe economic resource. This is helpful to me because it gives me solid facts to work from, such as:-By being a Member State of the European Union the United Kingdom is part of the world’s largest single market – an economic zone larger than that of the USA and Japan combined with a total GDP of around £11 trillion.-2.75 million jobs were created between the introduction of the single market in 1992 and 2006– British employers have made extensive use of this access to a larger potential workforce in order to tackle some of the UK’s skill shortages.Other resources on the EUThis source is important to me because It gives me an in depth coverage of what the European human rights act is and what benefits it brings.Considering the amount of content I could use I won’t list specific examples.This source is helpful to me because it gives me a brief view of the history of EuropeOne such thing I can use from this is the fact that:-European Economic Community was signed in 1957- dubbed the treaty of Rome- was signed by six countries, which didn’t include England.-With its own economy stuck in a rut, Britain saw France and Germany posting a strong post-war recovery and forming a powerful alliance, and changed its mind. It applied to join the EEC in 1961, only for entry to be vetoed – twice – by French President Charles de Gaulle. He accused Britain of a “deep-seated hostility” towards European construction, and of being more interested in links with the US.-Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath finally led Britain into the EEC in 1973, after Gen de Gaulle had left office. When membership was put to a referendum in 1975, it had the support of Britain’s three main parties and all its national newspapers. The result was resounding – with more than 67% voting in favour. But that did not end the debate. There was no immediate economic fillip – in fact strikes and power cuts continued, and rising oil prices caused double-digit inflation.-In 1984, Margaret Thatcher corrected what was seen as an injustice, negotiating a permanent rebate for Britain on its EC contributions, because it received much less in agricultural subsidies than some other countries, notably France.-Winston Churchill fully supported this idea, proposing for Europe “a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom… a kind of United States of Europe”.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280853/Romanians-times-better-come-Britain-Our-minimum-wage-draw-huge-numbers-says-study.htmlaccording to the daily mail, Romanians would increase 8x if they came to England. Of course the prices would also rise by around 8X also.