Thankyou for your time and understanding.
I use to think that we might be better off if some economic decisions were made by the EC/EU but the project seems beyond that, and I also came to the conclusion the smaller the government and more localised the better, which is something the EU cannot be.
As you can see, you can have no faith in our civil servants to get the best deal in any international dealings. They might be adequate to adminster the Ascension Isle or a land on another planet, but not here when the continent of Europe and foreign competition is 21 miles away.
Notice also that even when there is an agreed one set of rules, how they are enforced and administered differently.
If we were not iin the EU though, there would be no excuse from the civil service that EU law forbids charging of foreign trucks, and the exchange rate would not be a problem
I`ve asked university proffessors specialising in EU law how to rectify the situation, but there is no hope.It comes down to the fact that a member state can discriminate against its own citizens, something that is not usual in the other countries.
My major complaint IS about our civil service, and I have said elswhere that leaving the EU is not the end of the problem , but the start of good governance.
Regards.

However, from everything you’ve said, the problems you experienced appear to be due to British national regulations causing difficulties. The situation you found yourself in sounds to me like precisely the sort of thing that a pan-European organisation would be in an ideal position to solve, by putting in place one standard set of rules.

You were denied a level playing field by Britain – and an international organisation like the EU could have made your situation fairer by preventing Britain from discriminating in the way you describe. (I haven’t read the proposed Eurovignette directive in full, I must confess, but I get the impression that this is precisely what it is intended to do.)

I also can’t see how the situation would have been made any better were Britain not a member of the EU. You still would have been unable to take the British government to court, and the fluctuating exchange rate would still have led to advantages for non-British truckers.

Surely if your major complaint is (as it appears) that British civil servants are incompetent and British rules put British truckers at a disadvantage, you should be in favour of a pan-European system that could override such discriminatory national regulation and give you a higher legal authority to which to complain in situations where you have been unfairly punished by officials misapplying rules?

Firstly “exact” points at when or why a business folds can rarely be defined. As in when exactly did the motor industry go down in the UK ?
But general points can be seen as to why an industry would decline.
So this post will be long and probably tedious because it concerns a particular trade,has technical and bureacratic problems, but is probably indicative of our relationship with the EU.(And written live slowly, also giving perhaps personal info. )
Please also remember that my main objection to the EU is that Britian is unsuited to the project, because, in the main, our civil service is rubbish.
So to start; we pay everywhere in Europe (not just the EU) but we dont charge foreign hauliers when they are in the UK, and the main excuse is because the EU will not allow it. As I`ve pointed out, this is nonsense but that is how we are governed, because we are in the EU. It may not be what the EU desires, but it shows how our civil service cannot get any benefit from the EU, only drawbacks.
I cannot take our government/civil service to an EU court because as I keep pointing out, a member state can discriminate against its own citizens.There is nothing anyone in the EU can do to rectify this iniquitous situation. Hence first reason to be out of the EU.
Then many years ago , when I was doing a bit of Austrian work, the single markey came into force .From a particular day, the “permits” would not be stamped by customs (terminated). Each truck could make as many journies as it could. But Austria was not in the EU (or EC as it was then )!
Here again our civil service managed to make another drawback. They did not terminate any permits, EU or non EU. But Austria still did because it still had a border with Germany and customs controls.
This meant that an Austrain truck just needed one permit for the year, but a British truck needed a permit for every trip.Naturally the Austrians took advantage and limited to amount of permit issued, so that the work would go to them. I pointed out to Fells at the Dept of Transport then that Austria was advantaged by being outside the EU, and he did the usual civil service trick of obfuscating. hence another reason to be out of the EU.
I registered my trucke in Holland. (A benefit of the EU !). Four times I got stopped in the UK, three by Dept of Transport and once by customs at Dover.In each case it was similar ;

Official : Can I see your authorisation [a general form of permit ]

Me; What does it look like ?

Official; A blue A4 sized sheet ..

Me; No, that is for English trucks. This is Dutch. What does it look like ?

Eventually they would admit they did not know. A dutch truck ! So near and always in the country. Not Kazakhstan or Morrocan. they are not taught what to look for in dealing with foreigners. They are adequate only in dealing with UK citizens. Hence another reason to leave the EU.
(Also one time I had a collar stud go on a wheel nut. In a DOT check, they had to let me go, rather than issue a GV9 and summons as they would to a British truck. Either the fault was petty,in which case why are British trucks hassles, or dangerous, in which case why are foreign trucks allowed to continue. In 2005, only two (2) foreign drivers were prosecuted.Hence another reason to leave the EU )
When I got rid of my trucks I went freelance and drove for haulage companies and agencies. Not what I wanted but I was always in demand. Until the NMS came in, and drivers who could take advantage of the high pound effectively earning a bank holiday rate every day came in.Hard to compete with that. Hence another reason to leave the EU.
Then I went to the tax office to persuade them that all my worl should be seld employed and could they stop hasstling an agency who was so afraid that I could only be PAYE. No they couldn`t have that otherwise all those romanians could come here and do that. Hence another reason to leave the EU.
This sort of thing goes on every day to Brits, always a negative experience of the project, rarely if ever a positive.
Hence why we should leave the EU.

Back in April, in the comments to this post you repeatedly claimed that it was the failures of British civil servants that caused your problems. You came back to the subject on this post a few days later, which inspired in turn a post devoted to your specific haulage complaints on another blog.

During all these lengthy discussions, we determined that the root cause of your specific problem was that a) British truckers are charged Vehicle Excise Duty, while non-British drivers are not, and b) that some European countries have negotiated agreements not to charge each other’s lorry drivers, but that Britain has failed to do so. Neither of which are because of anything the EU has done – but rather are due to a *LACK* of EU cooperation on haulage issues. (You even stated – I quote – “the Vignette system was devised in which the Benelux countries together with Denmark and Germany, would charge all foreign trucks as well as their own… We`re not in this system” – a system that has nothing to do with the EU, and which you blame as the root cause of your own difficulties.)

In addition, you yourself have said that you blame the EU because the British civil servants blame the EU – while in the same breath dismissing that as an excuse.

So, again – how *exactly* has the EU destroyed your way of life? Because from everything you’ve ever said about your career problems, I can’t see anything that can be blamed on the EU – other than the EU failing to assert its authority and force a level playing field for all EU truckers (something it has been trying to rectify over the last few years with the introduction of a “Eurovignette directive” specifically designed to rectify the problem of which you complain.

Because if you can’t even give a concrete example of how the EU has ruined *your* life – and if, as it appears to me, your decision to blame the EU for your problems rests on a misunderstanding – then I can surely be forgiven for doubting your other assertions about the damage it has wrought on other people’s?

I think that this complex situation would be hard to understand but it does help if you are in a particular trade or business.
There are decisions that come directly from the EU, and could be bad or good for business/jobs/life etc.Then there are decisions made by our own powers that be that are made to conform to the EU, even if erroneously, and there are actions that could/should be taken but are not, because the powers that be think it would be against EU law or even the spirit of the EU.
The haulage issues I`ve raised are only the half of it. I could show more examples but forbear because it requires great understanding (plus I hoped others would show examples both for and against in other commercial activities ).
Remember;

An EU member state may discriminate against its own citizens

and you get 50% of the way there.

Because I seem to recall on the innumerable previous threads that have discussed your personal situation, we managed to establish that, erm… The EU actually had nothing to do with the disadvantages you suffered, but that instead they were caused by a series of bilateral agreements between various European states *entirely outside of an EU framework* – and therefore it was a *lack* of European integration that caused you so much trouble.

Correct me if I’m wrong, of course.

I give you an imminent reply now, hopefully able to remember the posts you allude to.(like you I have a very bad memory ).

Firstly EUrophiles and EUrosceptics are the monikers given to the respective camps in this debate.There is nothing wrong with either if we are to discuss ths topic, otherwise we would have to use wordy terminology like Those Who Are Enthusiastic Or Broadly For The EU and Those Who Are Against Or Dubious Of The EU. I`m surprised you find being called a EUrophile offensive but I`m willing to use any other terms that are appropiate.

Secondly the reason I bring my self into it is because again I have a bad memory. I know others and read about other drawbacks of the EU but cannot remember the details. I`m lucky breathing doesn`t require a memory .But I can remember some details about my trade, a trade which took me through this EU project, out of it and back in again. I was able to see the workings at the coalface.

Thirdly it`s not just my job but my way of life. And not just mine, but other individuals as well.Lots of them. And when I read of others in other jobs, trades and industries I can understand as there are similarities to mine.The hypothetical quince jam manufacturer is a case in point.
If it was destroyed for a good reason I would accept it. But no good reason has been given.

You say you gave a plethora of concrete examples of why the EU has benefits for us ,and are annoyed that I discounted most or all of them.
Please remember that for a benefit to be a real selling point for the EU it must
(1) Be a benefit that only the EU could provide, not something that could be done or provided by our national government or local council.
(2) Be a benefit that is worth the cost of our membership, and compensate for the drawbacks
(3) Actually be of benefit, not just classed as a benefit because it is a policy announced by the EU.
Did you know that you could buy a DVD recorder that is programmable for up to 99 years ? No doubt a salesman at a retail shop would tell you this is a “benefit” in his sales spiel.but from the oldest man alive to a newborn child, what “benefit” is this to anyone. Such are many of the benefits sold to us by the EU.

You seem to label any refutation of your points as an Ad Hominen attack.
May I point out that I originally came to this site to see if my opinions of the EU are wrong.The fact that the EUrophile camp has not been able to persuade EUrosceptics otherwise is hardly my fault.I will also point out that I come into this lions den of EUrophiles and have been insulted, sworn at and shown bad feeling by EUrophiles some of whom are too cowardly to stay for debate.In that, these people share characteristics with some neo Nazis I have debated with. I hope I dont have misplaced optimism that most EUrophiles are not like that.
So I am sorry Hunter but I do not see that I have given Ad Hominen attacks on anyone unless they they direct any my way.My first post was factual and you can debate it, but reclassifying an opinion as ad hominen is not helpful.

It is, however, possible to make a case for either – depending on which economic assumptions and which figures you choose to apply in your workings. The question then is which argument do you find most convincing. Personally, though I remain unconvinced about the benefits of Britain joining the Eurozone, I find the theories that suggest EU membership to be more beneficial than detrimental more compelling than those that suggest the opposite.

More importantly, however, I have yet to see a single convincing economic theory supporting British withdrawal – they pretty much all rest on combinations of unsupported hypotheticals, misunderstandings about the situations of the EFTA countries, or (in extreme cases) assumptions that Britain’s geopolitical situation can be rolled back 40-odd years practically overnight to the joy and delight of the rest of the world (in particular the Commonwealth, which often features as a key plank in visions of a non-EU British future). It was partially this lack of any compelling theoretical backing for British “independence” that I first started shunting into a loosely pro-EU position.