UKC

People are saying the Europe issue is simple, but is it? There are questions I have which barely get touched on in the debates so far, and yet they are more critical in my mind than the more sentimental issues discussed thus far.

1) has the EU facilitated globalisation, and is globalisation all good?
2) has the EU encouraged the interdependency of EU nations, reducing the resilience to changes rather than increasing it?
3) has the EU encouraged resource depletion e.g. through mismanagement of the seas via the common fisheries policy?
4) do you have to have political union to have a workable free trade area?
5) do you have to have progressive movement toward political union to have coordinated action on climate change, resources etc?
6) with Scotland's entry into EU likely to require commitment to the Eurozone and fiscal integration, why, after the financial crisis, would anyone want that, when the ability to devalue your economy is such an asset?
7) why can't Europe represent a political group committed to mutual action without necessitating a European Parliament and loss of autonomy?
8) doesn't sustainability need more localism and less central facilitation of resource use?

I've become skeptical of European political union, while being pro immigration and at the same time seeing the need for coordinated action on the environment, security of energy supply, and other infrastructure requiring coordinated action. So please help me by adding some meat in the answers to these questions! At the moment, I think I'd vote out of the EU, but fail to see the necessity of an EU shaped by political union and devolved autonomy... ...persuade me of the folly of my ways!

In reply to contrariousjim:

>

In reply to contrariousjim:

1) I think globalisation is a good thing, I cant see how else we will reduce world poverty..

2) Possibly, but that can be a good and bad thing.. resilience to change can be good and bad, greater resilience to financial shocks etc..

3) That's very very narrow minded... you've picked one issue and broadened it out with no over evidence. certainly it drives forward to push more renewable energy sources..

4) how can it not? You need some sort of democratic basis, some sort of union to have free movement of trade and work force

5) Speaking as one voice will make more of a difference. The other EU countries have led the way in terms of renewables,

6) then go against the EU.. have your own currency. The financial crisis is overstated in the UK, we all had it, the EU certainly did but the currency came through it, its a new currency and still has issues but could a new Scottish currency have?

7) because it would have no democratic basis..

8) I dont think its either or...

In reply to IainRUK:
1) That answer assumes the sustainability of global economic growth and the continuance of freely available resources. I doubt that, and believe globalisation will precipitate greater inequalities in resource availability in the future. Furthermore, the assistance of global poverty through globalisation has been more of a side effects in what has been more about global corporatism than an intentional focus. Furthermore, looking at global inequality of wealth, this has supposedly increased, not decreased at a global level... ...so where it helps the poor, it's more of the analogy used by Boris about London, that the excess is justifiable because of the trickle down effects. Is that sustainable? If so how?

Off for run.. ..will answer more later.

In reply to contrariousjim:

Resources have never freely been available.There is always a cost.

You are looking at globalisation from our point of view where you can possibly argue we are worse off. In China they may have a different view.