Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

EU Policies added #350

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

anilliams
Copy link
Contributor

Added one about ensuring our membership is cost neutral - we get out what we put in, not necessarily just straight up money but through investment, development, etc.

Also added one about the possibility of leaving the EU and if we did, joining the EFTA.

@mikera
Copy link
Contributor

mikera commented May 7, 2015

Can we separate into two separate PRs? They seem like different issues to me, both worthy of a good debate

@Floppy
Copy link
Member

Floppy commented May 7, 2015

Yes, I think that would be a good idea.

@yellowgopher
Copy link
Contributor

I'm a Euro Sceptic but I think any membership of international organisations like the EU doesn't HAVE to be cost neutral - it should be about sharing ideas and resources for the greater good and, because we have inequality, some people/countries have to accept they might pay more. Now I can see that "greater good" could equate to a value but I am concerned, as soon as you put a figure on such things, it only serves to turn people against the idea ("it costs THAT much!?!").

Second idea - if we leave to try and join the EFTA - is sound.

@philipjohn
Copy link
Member

Cost neutrality sounds like a purely quantitative goal that ignores the actual benefits.

@mikera
Copy link
Contributor

mikera commented May 14, 2015

I don't think cost neutrality should be an explicit objective, but there I would support something about "all member states sharing fairly in terms of overall benefits and costs".

If there is to be a redistributive element (i.e. richer nations being greater net contributors) then I think that the level of this redistribution should be explicitly agreed (e.g. 2% of GDP from each country pooled and re-allocated according to population size would have a modest redistributive effect).

If you don't do this, then you end up with a bunch of "back door" redistribution happening through various channels (CAP, Structural fund, Cohesion fund etc.) which is driven by political / bureaucratic agendas isn't really transparent or fair.

@anilliams
Copy link
Contributor Author

So we agree that joining the EFTA is sound, but cost effective is not. I'll exclude cost effective and edit this to reflect that later today.

@Floppy Floppy added resubmit and removed resubmit labels Dec 4, 2015
@Floppy Floppy closed this Dec 4, 2015
@Floppy
Copy link
Member

Floppy commented Feb 8, 2017

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote symbol type this points
Agree 👍 :thumbsup: 1
Abstain :hand: -1
Block 👎 :thumbsdown: -1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

If the proposer makes a change to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants