UKC

A year ago I would have voted to stay in, now I'm not so sure and if the vote were tomorrow I think I'd vote Out.

How about you - In or Out?

In reply to Babika:

In. Nobody has explained the benefits of leaving and how they would outweigh the kerfuffle involved.

What's changed your mind in the last year?

In reply to Babika:
In - But not keen on being labelled from Sheffield, North, UK or European, I am me the same as you, but with differences

In reply to Babika:

In. Can't see a single benefit of leaving that outweighs the huge economic dis-benefits, and what it says about us as a country. The way that the EU treated the Greece / the Greek people nearly swayed me last year, but I still think it's better for us to be in.

In reply to Babika:

In. The grass is not greener.

In.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Very good question - and one I'm a little uneasy about answering...
Syria, terrorism, Grexit, a feeling of wanting to be in charge of our own destiny.....

I did a straw poll amongst 4 climbing friends in a café (2 Labour, 2 Tory) and 3 were now "Out" as opposed to a year ago and only 1 in. So I was curious how the wider UKC world felt. We are essentially random bunch although perhaps the open border travel issue is an influential factor for more travel minded people.

In reply to Babika:

in

In reply to Babika:

In. Globalisation is occuring at an unprecedented rate, why would we want to leave the party?

In reply to Babika:

In.

I can't really see any advantages to leaving, apart from being able to rip up some regulations.

And, whilst that may well be of benefit to parts of the City and to certain types of businesses, many others would lose - and it seems likely to do far more to hurt most ordinary people than to help them, by weakening rights, and probably creating a bigger wealth gap.

Plus all the usual stuff about solidarity, helping make war less likely in Europe, and being part of a large block which has more ability to compete with and stand up to the other ones.

In reply to Babika:

In.

The EU is the only thing protecting us from our lovely Tory government working everybody like slaves. I don't really have a problem with sovereignty (although I do think westminster should sit for a lot less days now they have given powers to Brussels and the devolution) and despite a lot of the nonsense spouted the EU is pretty democratic. I also think EU migrants are the least of our worries and the proportion of them coming here as benefit claimants cost us so little as to be a non-issue that should be laughed at. it just isn't worth leaving the EU for. Cameron has backed us into a stupid corner over this and its a massive irrelevant distraction.

In reply to Babika:


Interesting, I don't see how a Brexit would immunise us from a single one of those first 3 or enable the last one. This isn't meant to be combative but I think the concept that these or the solution to these are in any way related to being in or out of the EU is ridiculous. I think the Out campaign would like to make that connection in our heads but it doesn't really stand up to proper logical scrutiny.

In reply to Babika:

Interesting. 9 In 1 Out so far.

Looks like Cameron has nothing to worry about if UKC is at all representative of the general voting population. He should stop trundling round Europe and set the date right away!

In reply to Babika:

He should cancel it, have a vote of confidence from his party and then move on to something more important!

In reply to Babika:

Unfortunatley I think UKC tends to not reflect the general electorate - a huge extrapolation/guess would suggest that most climbers tend to reside in the north of the UK (and Wales) which are traditionally Labour or SNP lands - both of which would gravitate towards remaining in the EU.

Personally I'd like to see a more unified Europe than we currently have, potentially even working under a more federal system.

In reply to Babika:

I honestly do not know. I would like someone to put forward the arguments in an unbiased way. I voted in the first referendum but feel as though we have been hoodwinked into a system that I would not have voted for. It's currently undemocratic, top heavy, unrepresentative and overly bureaucratic and quite possibly corrupt. Unless there are major changes I would vote for out.

Al

In reply to Babika:

I'm still undecided, I'm a conservative voter and I've very much for us as a nation being in control of our destiny and boarders (for better or worse). But beyond that I've very little factual information on which to base a judgement and I'd like to think I'm more politically aware than the average man on the street.

So how would I vote tomorrow? I honestly don't know, maybe I'd vote out just for the sake of something different but I don't think until the cross is drawn in the box that either option is out of the window for me yet.

What do I think the outcome will be? 60-40 to stay in is my guess.

In reply to Babika:

In.

I work in a business with lots of European markets and offices. Free movement is very important. Also, given Cameron's failure to secure a better deal thus far, I highly doubt his ability to negotiate a decent free trade deal if we leave the EU.

In reply to Babika:

In.

Simple really form a business perspective the market makes things so simple to trade its unreal.

Anybody out there who exports /imports will understand this.

So its just not worth giving this up as it may affect our economic prosperity.Inward investment from countrys outside Europe would probably shift away.

In reply to Babika:

In. Out presents no real advantages and an awful lot of headaches and potentially some long term problems.

In reply to Babika:

I don't often agree with David Cameron, but I think he's right in that leaving the EU would make us less in charge of our own destiny. If we are to maintain any meaningful trade with the EU, then we will have to abide by the EU's trade rules, like Norway and Switzerland do. But like Norway and Switzerland, we won't have a say in writing those rules.

In terms of Syria and terrorism, I don't think it's membership of the EU that puts us at risk of that, but membership of NATO.

In reply to Babika:

In.

In reply to Babika:

In - for pretty much the same reasons Skog mentions upthread.

In reply to Babika: In.

In reply to Babika:

In. Love my county and country and also love being 100% European. UKIP assert that the Commonwealth offers as much in terms of cultural and economic benefits as the EU. I bet they're not thinking Nigeria etc. We need more unity in the world not a version of 19th/20th century nationalism that ruined the lives of millions.

In reply to Babika:

In.

In reply to Babika:

In, as we are, but no further in.

In reply to teflonpete:

In

In reply to Babika:

In - unless or until someone can convince me as to the benefits of out.

In reply to Babika:

In.

In reply to Babika:

Out

Reason: to try and save ukclimbing from imploding due to near enough everyone agreeing on something.

In reply to Babika:

In.

Because, for example...

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21674698-there-growing-risk-britain-w...

http://www.universitiesforeurope.com/Pages/Home.aspx

and the past 60 years.

In reply to Babika:

In, I don't trust British governments of any party without another body to hold them to account.

In reply to skog:

In. But with teflonpete's caveat:



Any regulations regarding any products we trade with EU countries will still have to be compliant with EU regs. So, we will still have to comply with EU regs, but we will have absolutely no say in formulating those regs...

Something a Norwegian Trade Minister sounded rather pained about when interviewed on the Today programme a few months ago...

In reply to Clarence:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm not sure that the EC is that accountable. Certainly not in its financial accounting...

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You vote Tory and want to control boarders - public school?

In reply to Babika:

In. Although I would like to see some tweaks on power and who ultimately has control over us.

In general though we stand stronger together both the UK in the EU and the EU with the UK in it.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Given the huge impact it would have on millions of people, maybe you'd be better off not voting at all if this is the kind of reason you'd use to determine how to vote.

In reply to Babika:

Out - I want us to leave the EU and move somewhere warmer.

In reply to Babika:

In, for all sorts of practical reasons. I can't think of a single reason to leave which stands up to scrutiny.

In reply to Babika:

In.

In reply to Babika:
I think England would be worse off if it left the EU (Scotland Wales & Ireland could decide they don't want to be outside of the EU).

I think we possibly need to have (more) dialogue with Brussels when it comes to what rules we live under though.

In for me.

I think we'd be out in the wilderness if we left the EU.

In reply to Babika:

Interesting poll data here:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/06/big-dividing-lines-eu-age-education-an...

Although the most amazing thing is that nearly 30% of UKIP voters want to stay in the EU...

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Ha, ha. I like how that last grouping worked out. I wonder of it's representatvie in all all other aspects...

In reply to Babika:

Out.

In reply to Babika:

In.

In reply to RyanOsborne:
What I find more interesting from that data (aside from the fact that 30% of UKIP voters are to stupid to acknowledge the raison d'etre of their miserable outfit) is that overwhelmingly the older members of our society who do not have to live with the outcome of the referendum for as long as younger voters want to leave. In contrast, younger voters who may well not bother to vote (although that's another issue) may be stuck with an irreversible decision we don't want decided by what-will-be the generation before us.

In reply to Babika:

In, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN, IN

In reply to Babika:

If only the electorate for the EU referendum was restricted to UKC members - not very democratic I know, but I really fear a No result.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the UKC responses. Climbers and mountaineers, at least the ones I know, tend to have broader than average horizons, least bigoted attitudes and a more rational approach to political issues (despite occasional posts to the contrary on this forum).

I believe that political decisions should be taken as close to home as possible, but for some of the most important decisions - regulating the excesses of multi-national companies, negotiating favourable trade deals etc - the European level is the most "local" level at which effective decisions can be taken in today's world.

Many of the so-called "petty" European regulations that the No-sayers object to are actually there to protect European workers from the race to the bottom in wages and working conditions that could ensue if the level playing field of the single-market was removed.

And I would far rather live in a Europe where national differences are fought out in the corridors of Brussels than on the killing fields of Flanders.

I'm "In" for sure.

Martin

In reply to Babika:

In. The EU isn't without problems, but I see far greater problems in being outside.

It might have been better if we had had the "trading bloc" style relationship Switzerland has, but that ship has sailed.

In reply to Babika:

Out.

In reply to ianstevens:


I find myself in the EU for exactly the reasons you allude to, such is democracy I'm afraid

In reply to Martin Hore:

In for me too, for similar reasons. A lot of the rules set by the EU have been to the benefit of the worker, consumer and individual living in society. Copmare that to what may hapen in a Tory led UK. I shudder.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


>Not only that but Norway and Switzerland have to make financial contributions - because they rely on trade with the EU like we do and have no choice - that are almost as much as if they were members but with no say on policy. Crazy but true. There have been a number of articles in the better newspapers about this. In both countries most politicians and economists support entry but have been voted down in several referendums. This fact alone - that we would have to abide by EU policies and contribute almost as much but with no say - makes an in vote the only sane one. Not saying that the EU is perfect and shouldn't be reformed, of course.

In reply to Babika:

I'm more on the out side at the moment. My biggest concern is that once we vote to stay in, we will be in regardless of what changes are brought about. We won't ever get another opportunity to leave, and will be governed more and more by Brussels whether we like what they implement or not.

Economically we should be fine outside.

I don't think we are likely to lose any close allies by leaving, so our security situation should not worsen.

I don't see that many positives to staying in, but we will have a lot of rules and regulation removed if we leave.

But maybe that's just me.

It looks like it could trigger a second Scottish independence referendum though.

In reply to Babika:

I hate Brussel Sprouts, so I'm out

In reply to Babika:
Out.
This could be a chance to leave the sinking ship that is the Common Market, EEC, EC, EU
or whatever it calls itself these days.

Pmc

In reply to rossowen:

>> 'Economically we should be fine outside.'

Most economists (see my post previous to yours) would strongly disagree with you. But what do they know? We do most of our trade with the EU and would have to accept whatever deal they offered us. Leaving could well lead to economic disaster.

In reply to Babika:

I don't think I'd vote. I didn't want a referendum.

In reply to Babika:

In. Reform the EU from within. Mainly to annoy that braying R-sole Farage, and wonky dial Carswell. Yes people I am *that* shallow.

In reply to Pekkie:

We would need to renegotiate our trade agreement with the EU, but they buy from us too so it is a two way thing.

The stat I read a little while ago was that we would be 2-3% worse off in five years if we were unable to get another trade agreement with the EU. I'll see if I can dig out the link. I'm pretty sure a new agreement would be dealt with quite quickly and if not 3% of gdp isn't a deal breaking amount to me.

Also, the UK has one of the largest financial sectors in the world, and if we stayed and Brussles brought in the planned financial transaction tax, we would likely see a capital flight from the UK leaving us worse off in any case.

They are all just predictions and anything could happen whichever way we go.

In reply to Pekkie:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642

Open Europe says worst case 0.8% worse, best case 1.6% better off by 2030 if we leave. Pretty marginal imo considering the other influences which could have a much bigger impact by then either way like the financial transaction tax.

But I do accept that there may be unforseens that could have a negative impact of we left.

In reply to Babika:
Out. The EU is a failed social economic exercise that continues to operate as a Franco German monopoly over the rest of Europe, particularly those countries in the Euro. We are dictated to by unelected and unaccountable politicians who hold an unacceptable level of control over our countries finances, our legal system and our economy. To be frank I'm fed up hearing about how bad it would be for us to leave but no one can offer anything other than empty threats with no foundation. The EU needs the UK more than vice versa and the UK leaving will be the beginning of the collapse of this sleazy house of cards.

In reply to Babika:

Out. The EU is a bureaucratic monolith, which has tried to herd cats and failed..

In reply to MaxJEF:

Good point, I guess those voting today could well be in the over 50 category (although you may not be) and didn't have a chance to vote first time round.

In reply to Big Ger:


The EU has done a remarkably good job of herding cats that used to fight each other incessantly.

Martin

Interesting that the evening respondents show a majority for Out while the daytime respondents were almost unanimously for In.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Neither did I, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


But if you didn't want a referendum (nor did I) you are presumably for In. If everyone who didn't want a referendum stays at home we'll be Out for sure. Please vote!

Martin.

In reply to Martin Hore:


The evening respondents are the ones who work during the day

In reply to rossowen:


Just one of the many articles on the subject.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-v...

In reply to Pekkie:

That's interesting reading. If the UK were to go with a Norway style arrangment we would still need to abide by the vast majority of the rules and pay 94% of what we pay now, and we would have no influence in the bloc.

If it were really all that bad though Norway would simply join the EU. They are at liberty to do so, but have declined in two separate referendums.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Vaguely, yes. For me it's a purely economic argument - I don't give much of a toss about the democratic angle. I can't solve the economic equation, nor is the media transparent enough for me to make a confident decision on who best to trust to form my view.

Instinctively, I think Europe probably helps out a bit in terms of protecting our rights, but I don't think it does a brilliant job nor do I think that without EU law we'd be exploited much worse (e.g. the Lords have shown that they can provide decent checks on really awful policies).

So my vote - probably in - doesn't count for much. I just want the cleverest people to crunch the numbers and come up with the most compelling set of evidence (which I don't want to have to read through, thanks). OK, I'm talking about economists here, so maybe we should let them do that and then just do the opposite - that's more likely to be right!

In reply to Babika

In

In reply to Big Ger:


So does that mean "In" has more support amongst retired folk like me? - the opposite of what a lot of people were suggesting earlier?

The impression I get though is that quite a lot of people who work during the day still find time to contribute to this forum.

Martin

In reply to Babika:

In.

In reply to rossowen:



There were several issues in the Norwegian and Swiss referendums - eg fish quotas with Norway and traditional neutrality with the Swiss (though that didn't stop Sweden joining). A democratic vote is quite often determined by emotional issues rather than self interest. The Tories would never win an election in the UK unless a significant percentage of the working class voted for them. I'm sticking with an 'In, though with as much reform as possible' vote. For instance, I don't see the need for increasing political union.

In reply to rossowen:

Norway used their oil money wisely, and are sitting on a huge mound of cash. Theirs is a somewhat different situation to ours. And, as I observed earlier, there is some frustration within government that their public keep rejecting EU membership. It isn't a rational vote, I don't think.

In reply to Pekkie:

Fair enough.

I think if it were possible to have an in vote with less political union I'd consider it, but the last time there was a vote decades ago it was for the EEC only and look where we are now. I think if we vote in again now we are committing to a federal EU with ever closer union, whether Dave gets what he wants or not, because the vote is once in a lifetime and the EU knows it.

The economic side of things are less concerning to me than the thought of being pulled in to a political union where we have effectively no say on anything because we are continually outvoted on matters.

There are risks to leaving of course, but on balance I see those as lesser issues to being tied in for another generation or longer.

I also can't see the UK simply failing financially if we leave. There will be some capital flight for businesses who directly trade with the EU who now have a tariff to pay for that trade, but conversely the UK will be at liberty to make conditions here more favourable and attractive for other businesses.

In reply to Babika:

In

In reply to Pekkie:


Or Ireland, Austria or Finland.

Norwegian political elites were all strongly pro EU during their referendums but the fish won it it seems. Now they have right wing populists in parliament late like everyone else who are against.

In reply to Martin Hore:

And maybe those who can take a cheeky minute or two to check UKC at work?

In reply to rossowen:

>There will be some capital flight for businesses who directly trade with the EU who now have a tariff to pay for that trade, but conversely the UK will be at liberty to make conditions here more favourable and attractive for other businesses.

Isn't "conditions here more favourable and attractive for other businesses" a shorthand for lower wages, poorer working conditions and lower corporate taxes - ie less money for the NHS, schools etc? I appreciate there's a balance to be struck between encouraging business and protecting public services and workers' conditions, but I don't think current EU regulations steer us far from the optimum balance here.


Who is your "we". This assumes that the British public all feel one way and the rest of Europe all feel the other. No different to saying Ipswich (my town) is continually out-voted at Westminster.

Martin

In reply to Babika:

It's a tough one for me. In terms of the impact on the economy by leaving then I would be voting to stay in.

However, the current chaos over the migration issue and the autocratic way Merkel is operating is frightening. Germany acting unilaterally and expecting the rest of the EU to do as it's told, sanctions like losing your job for posting dissent on facebook, private property seized to house migrants, a state media cover up of what seems to be co-ordinated sexual assaults across Europe. That doesn't sound like the wonderful freedom that membership of the EU is supposed to guarantee.

This could be classed as xenophobia or racism, perhaps it is at a subconscious level, who knows. I have no problem with the current levels of skilled immigration, and actually think we should be taking in far greater numbers of vulnerable refugees than we are at present. But an open invitation to hundreds of thousands, and potentially millions of uneducated young men from violent, misogynistic cultures that see women, gays and anyone of the wrong religion as inferior? What could possibly go wrong? I fear the situation is only going to get worse over the coming years. For that reason I'll be voting out, (assuming there is a referendum). No problems with being part of an economic trading bloc with common rights across that economic area, but a European superstate?

Maybe I'm old, maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm xenophobic. I just can't shake the feeling that the grand plan for the EU is more about consolidating power in the hands of a technocratic, neo-liberal elite than it is about the rights of EU citizens, no matter how it's being dressed up at present.

In reply to Babika:

Really tricky one.
On the one hand, I've received 50% capital intervention for new buildings and many millions of Euros funding research projects over the years. A very positive aspect is a reasonably level playing field for Euro funding applications (judging applications based on quality of science etc.) rather than the hideously distorted UK funding landscape which supports a small R&D base. For industrial competitiveness, then again direct EU funding wins hands down against our parochial system via Innovate UK etc. This is particularly pertinent to SME support via ERDF ESIF funding. I'm just about to kick off huge ERDF programmes supporting R&D across thousands of SMEs in Low Carbon technologies and manufacturing, Transport manufacturing, and industrial innovation.
All very good. However, on the other hand, whenever I'm in Brussels for meetings with the EC, I'm struck by the sheer scale of expenditure and the level of vested interests who are consequently very keen for the EU to grow further. The best way I can describe it is a bit 'FIFA' with an associated top heavy French beurocratic elite.
Overall, given how critical Research and Innovation are to a growing, healthy economy, I would vote to stay in until a UK government puts together a credible and more inclusive plan to develop our expertise and industrial base.

In reply to ianstevens:


I will definitely vote for remaining but I've become a reluctant supporter of the referendum. I'm so frustrated by our sulky semi-detached attitude to the EU, caused, I think, by a reluctance of both main parties to do anything constructive that might provoke a split in their own ranks, that I'd prefer to have a referendum to settle the issue and deprive at least the Little England tendency within the Conservative party of their stock argument that the EU isn't what they voted for back in 1975.

It's probably naive, but I really hope for a clear vote to stay in the EU, which will free the government, of whatever persuasion, to take a fuller and more enthusiastic part in reforming those parts of the EU which surely do need to be improved, rather than complaining about them from the sidelines.

It remains to be seen whether the Scottish independence referendum achieved its objective of resolving the issue for at least a generation (I think the general election, putting such a large number of SNP MPs into parliament will be a more decisive factor), but I don't see any sign that we will be revisiting proportional representation any time soon.

I fully expect that a number of the more rapid eurosceptics will complain that they were robbed in some way, however clear the result, but we can at least hope...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

A common market and a European union are not the same thing and I'm sure that when the UK signed up to the common market no one could envisage the federal nature of things to come.
Having said that it was clear from the start that Germany and France would be the dominant force and that everybody else would be dancing to their tune.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Not to mention a very authoritarian German streak in the mix. In fact you're spot on with the FIFA analogy. A remote, distant collection of decision makers accountable only to themselves, with nepotism and cronyism rife. They do like referendums though, in fact they keep having them until the correct result is made.

I can't believe I'm going to write the next bit, I feel like a tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorist. It's already been stated that we can't withdraw, the only possible future is ever closer union. As I posted earlier I can't shake the suspicion that once the machinery of a massive supranational state is in place, the deals with multinational companies are done, and there's a firm grip on mainstraim and social media that things will begin to change. I can't help thinking at that point that human rights and employment law will suddenly become much less important within the now unopposable EU.

I'm off for a lie down.

In reply to Ridge:



You seem to be conflating issues, and yeah, getting a bit paranoid.

Yes there's the 'ever close union', but the UK (and other countries) keeps getting exemptions..... Shengen zone, Euro.

If you are concerned about refugees getting EU passports and coming to Blighty, I'd wait and see what's negotiated, I'm sure that will feature.

You seem very annoyed with Germany, some of which I agree with you on, but this referendum will be about the UK, about our economy.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


A good point. When I worked in regeneration we got millions and millions of Euro funding for Britain's deprived areas - eg Merseyside. It was all well spent and made a big difference to infrastructure, business start-ups, job creation and competitiveness.

>

In reply to Gone for good:


You can't complain about the music if you refuse to dance at all.

In reply to Pekkie:


On the other hand, if we hadn't paid that money in to the EU in the first place we could have just spent it directly on the regeneration ourselves and cut out the (very expensive and bureaucratic) middleman.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Perhaps, but you can't divorce all the issues.


For the moment. The aim is to ultimately remove all the opt outs.


Absolutely no issues with genuine refugees getting passports. There's a significant contingent that shouldn't be allowed into Europe. We have some pretty despicable people of our own, we don't need to import any mor en masse.


I've already said I have no issues with a European Economic Community, (which is what we originally signed up for). I think a more powerful EU has the opportunity to slide into something far more authoritarian than many people would be comfortable with.

In reply to Babika:
The EU will collapse without reform within a decade, from either immigration, recession or the euro, possibly all three.

The question that I struggle with, is it to have control of a dying beast at arms length, or just put as much distance between you and it as possible.

A UK exit, might save the Eu though, by showing them reform is essential.

I'd vote out at the moment.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


You can when it was De Gaulle playing the fiddle!

In reply to Martin Hore:
I don't mean becoming more competitive by making conditions and wages lower, I mean by the savings through removing EU regulation which apparently cost us c. £24b per annum.

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/100-most-expensive...

We do get funding from the EU for certain things, but we pay £5.5bn per annum net of the rebate and are the forth largest contributor to the EU.

The 'we' being he uk of course where we may disagree with some of the EU's policies either now or in the future. For example the financial transaction tax, or any another tax, regulation or red tape which is not fair and/or is detrimental to the UK economy, but beneficial to numerous other member states who vote it in anyway.

In reply to pec:


it wouldn't have happened though, would it? The EU has this target of 'convergence' whereby they want deprived regions to reach the EU average on GDP. Ireland played this card so successfully that they are now one of the richest EU regions. What's there not to like? Go on, tell me.

In reply to Pekkie:


It would if the democratically elected government of the UK had decided to do it.


Where do I start?
The buroeaucracy and red tape, the inefficiency, the fudges and compromise, the lack of democratic accountability, the duplication of resources in Brussels and Strasbourg, the allowing of political goals to overide commonsense (like letting Greece into the euro in the first place), the lack of politcal will to deal with its problems (like Greece), the pig headed arrogance that makes countries vote again when they vote the "wrong" way in referendums, the inability to police its borders, the remorseless centralisation of power, the euroland mired in near permanent stagnation, the dominance of the French and Germans, the overuling of national parliaments and judicial systems.
There's a few things that spring to mind.

In reply to rossowen:

>"I don't mean becoming more competitive by making conditions and wages lower, I mean by the savings through removing EU regulation which apparently cost us c. £24b per annum."

Sorry Ross if this appears argumentative but the "savings through removing EU regulation which apparently cost us c. £24b per annum" are the savings businesses could make through, for example, not abiding by the EU working time directive. They are, at least in part, "savings" at the expense of workers' conditions of service.

>"We do get funding from the EU for certain things, but we pay £5.5bn per annum net of the rebate and are the forth largest contributor to the EU."

As we should be doing - we are either the second or third largest European economy (depending on how we rate against France at any particular time). Fourth largest contributor is barely paying our fair share.

>"The 'we' being the uk of course where we may disagree with some of the EU's policies either now or in the future. For example the financial transaction tax..."

Sorry, but you seem here to be assuming again that "the UK" has one opinion. I would have thought people in the UK have opinions roughly as diverse as those in Europe as a whole. I personally would support a financial transaction tax. If it applied equally across the EU it would not drive financial businesses away from London to other European financial centres because all the financial centres would be on a level playing field. This is an excellent example of how the EU can and should work to the benefit of all. Not having an EU-wide policy makes it more difficult to introduce a financial transaction tax because countries introducing it would suffer a loss of financial businesses to countries not introducing it. If all of Europe introduces it together then we all benefit from a tax that will only cut small margins off the profits of Big Finance but contribute valuably to the funding of essential services such as health and education.

I appreciate I come from a left-of-centre standpoint which you may not share but so does a substantial proportion, often a majority, of the UK electorate. As above "the UK" does not have one voice just because we currently have a Tory government speaking on our behalf in Europe.

Martin

In reply to pec:
The lack of democratic accountability is a good thing. If the EU had a true democratic mandate rather than power with commissioners appointed by national governments then we really would be in a unified state.

The real democratic mandate should remain for a UK government.

In reply to Martin Hore:

Fair comments Martin. I think the FTT is a tricky one because my understanding is that institutions based in the UK who will be affected could easily move their businesses to countries which are not in Europe and then the capital would go with them. If that were to happen the UK would be disproportionately adversely affected by it, even though the EU would likely benefit as a whole.

In reply to elsewhere:


So why waste millions on a meaningless talking shop, i.e. the EU parliament?


Except increasingly it doesn't.

In reply to Gone for good:

>. The EU needs the UK more than vice versa and the UK leaving will be the beginning of the collapse of this sleazy house of cards.

That's just not true and is very much a kin to 'it's my ball'.. The UK just isn't that important, many of its issues come from this, that we aren't a major player anymore. We can't dictate. Which is right, the UK is a small part of the EU so shouldn't be the tail wagging the dog.

In reply to Ridge:


I don't think so, not after Greece. I don't think there's the appetite in Europe any more, times are a changing.

And besides, I think we are strong enough as a nation to resist moves to a federal Europe if it isn't what we want.


It's a complex issue, some 'bad' people will be 'genuine refugees'. As long as we stay out of Shengen I don't think it affects us too much. I think if we left we would have problems, less cooperation from France.

In reply to Gone for good:



The concept of a European Union (political and military, rather than economic) actually predates the EEC/EC.

See:
Treaty of Brussels, 1948 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brussels
and the Western European Union, 1954 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union
Also, Churchill's famous 1946 'United States of Europe' speech

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


>It started off after the war as the European Coal and Steel Community which was intended to combine the heavy industries of Germany and France so that there would never be another war in europe. Job done?

In reply to pec:
>> 'Where do I start?> The buroeaucracy and red tape, the inefficiency, the fudges and compromise, the lack of democratic accountability...'

It's not perfect and there's lots of room for reform and improvement. What I was pointing out is that there have been some successes and the deprived regions policy is one of them. I suppose the whole of Greece will be one now...

In reply to Ridge: Forgot to add, it's six years before refugees can apply for German citizenship, and then an eu passport. It's a German issue, and us staying or leaving the EU won't change their policies.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Indeed, wasn't there a chap from Austria with a funny moustache that had similar ideas? And I recall reading about a vertically-challenged Corsican with the same plans. Of course, not to forget assorted emperors of Rome. I remember reading, also, that none of it ended too well.

In reply to pec:

It probably has some use scrutinising the commissioners but you have a point.


The fact that we are due a referendum tells you the democratic mandate remains within the UK.
We decide which international treaties we continue to follow.

In reply to rossowen:


Yes, you may be right there, but I think we retain greater ability to reign in the excesses of global companies (including financial ones) if we operate at an EU level. Multi-nationals can't easily ignore the world's biggest market, which is what the EU is.

Martin

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:






These were first and foremost defence treaties created by the need to counter the looming communist threat.

As for Churchill, he made that speech one year after the end of the war. I doubt that he would come to the same conclusion 10 years later.

In reply to ianstevens:


The Labour/left position isn't that obvious, is it?

In reply to Babika:

I'd vote in.
I live in south Wales, an area that has some very deprived bits that are currently supported quite heavily by the EU and I really don't trust the Tories to step in and help fill the funding gap if we were to leave the EU.
Also, I'm a researcher who has in the past and may end up in the future being funded by European money and science is an international business that really needs cooperation across national borders.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Maybe if we weren't funding the EU to run two parliaments, in two different countries, when they could easily centralise, there would be more funds available for UK projects, without having to push the funds through lots of middle men first.

While Strasbourg parliament still exists I can't take the eu seriously.

In reply to Martin Hore:



Like all those international companies domiciled in luxembourg so they could tax dodge, all whilst the current Eu president was leader there.

You have two hopes and one is bob.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Sometimes when the band finally starts you realise they are $hit and it is better to cut your losses and go to another pub or gig, rather than ruin or waste a whole evening.

In reply to summo:

I agree with you about the stupidity of having two seats of parliament, getting rid of Strasbourg would be great, but nobody has suggested this and this isn't one of the policies that the out MPs are campaigning on. And, as I say in my previous post, I don't see that any savings made from leaving the EU would be fairly distributed by a Tory government.

In reply to Babika:

If tomorrow in. But there are several elements which make me uneasy. In the first place I think the ideologists have gone too far and too fast. Hence a considerable backlash across many European countries, not just UK. My feeling is that there should be no further enlargement, and certainly not Turkey. The emphasis should be on essentially digesting what has already proved a too heavy meal. One issue that is important is a consistent basis for taxation across the Union (nb I use the term basis, not individual rates applied, but issues that concern such things as family taxation and inheritance across Europe, etc). Another element that worries me is the justice system. British justice is so different from the rest of Europe that I find that I am unhappy at the way ECHR often works. Its role should be confined to major Human Rights issues and leave the appeals of individuals generally to be decided within each country's own judicial system. So I think that some of the things Cameron wants represent a much wider constituency than just our own country while at the same time asking for both more legislation in certain domains and less in others. That a country like Luxembourg should have been allowed to get away with the kind of parasitic behaviour it has and then should have Juncker as President makes me want to puke. Let's get these anomalies sorted out first and provide a more economically and social just system across Europe before rushing into yet further integration.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Fairly distributed, don't ni, Scotland and wales already get more per capita from the UK treasury than England?

What is fair?

In reply to summo:

One very serious outcome of Brexit would be a breakup of the United Kingdom. An independent Scotland would then stay in the EU greatly at our expense, as European firms would then invest in and deal with Scotland rather than England. Many European companies would surely move out of England.

Then there is the whole very serious issue of defence. Important article here:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/europe-and-the-uks-defence-review/

In reply to Babika:

Figures for 2013




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/11221427/EU-budget-what-...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You're assuming that Scotland wouldn't vote out, whereas there's little evidence that there is much difference in opinion to the EU. but perhaps some independence supporters might vote to leave the EU in the hope that a vote for out would speed up Scottish independence.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Not sure where you've seen that, there is plenty of evidence of a big difference of opinion. Latest regional poll for Scotland puts remain at 65% and only 22% leave.
Latest one for England is at 43% leave and 40% remain...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_Euro...

To the point that many pollsters predict that it could well be the devolved nations vote keeping the whole of the UK in the EU in the end.

In reply to RomTheBear:

There's bugger all difference http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/scotland-blog/2015/mar/26/three-things-t...

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Scotland couldn't simply stay in the eu, it would need an in/out referendum, then once independent it could apply to join the eu. So perhaps 10 years minimum, by then the next recession will have the killed the euro and split Europe in two, ie northern and southern.

In reply to Babika:

Love the hokey cokey me.

In.

In reply to summo:

It's called socialism, those the richer areas try to help the poorer areas to develop with the hope that they'll be able to stand up for themselves.
As I'll say again, the Tories aren't keen on this because they are rich and happy to stick two fingers up to anyone poor.

Anyway, aren't we supposed to be the UK where the boundaries are blurred, so what's with getting wound up by who gets the cash because they are in Wales/Scotland/NI.
And saying this, I'm sure the North of England will be getting a good chunk of EU cash, but then the Tories don't care about them either because they haven't gotas many MPs up there and they are poor anyway.

In reply to gethin_allen:


You're right there...

Socialism: noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

In reply to gethin_allen:


It won't happen fully, the south wales valleys just like my north east homeland have a proportion of people who won't now lift a finger, they expect work to be brought to their doorstep, rather than go out and make life happen. It then spreads to the next generation.


Why the tories, I think most people dislike long term unemployment?


Nope, because of the assemblies funding, the 3 areas get more funding than England per capita, the boundaries aren't blurred at all, they are very precise.


I think you are fighting an anti tory battle and ignoring the facts a little. The North East has a dire road network and is only now improving. Ever been on the A1? the A470 up to Merthyr(relatively quiet road compared to the A1) was done decades ago and the A1 north of Leeming Bar is only just getting upgrades now. Even better the A1 north of Newcastle?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's a social attitude survey and they ask different questions about what people think of the EU, not the eu referendum.
But in terms of the leave/remain referendum question, there is a big difference in the polls between Scotland and England. Just look at the few latest ones.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/02/eu-referendum-english-votes...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, but I think people's social attitudes will probably have an effect on how they vote in the referendum. And note the "internet polling" disclaimer. Still, we'll have to see if the pollsters are better this time. It's nice to have you back on an independence debate, one where we're probably both agreed that leaving a relatively successful union because of some fanciful notion of freedom is a bit daft.

In reply to Babika:
"There could be no more eloquent epitaph on the destruction of Britain's once-proud fishing industry than the recent revelation that 23 per cent of the entire fishing quota Brussels allows Britain now goes to a single giant Dutch trawler, the Cornelis Vrolijk, to land all its catches in Holland."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11305123/No-end-to-the-EUs-crazy-fishing...

In reply to Big Ger:


I agree. Although that's not just down to the amount of national quota but to the commoditisation of the fishing quotas so that they they can be sold on by the people to whom they were originally allocated. The Dutch fisheries only have these quotas because British fisherman sold them to them.

It's the same with farming subsidies. The subsidies supposedly attached to agricultural land are commonly sold off to third parties with no connection to it. I don't know for sure but I suspect that may be down to our national interpretation of the law, rather than the EU.

In reply to Big Ger:


It pays to be suspicious of any 'facts' in a Christopher Booker article

It turns out it is the UK government which allocates that 23% of the British quota to the Cornelis Vrolijk, and EU rules are being used to challenge that

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/greenpeace-wins-permission-take-uk...

In reply to Mike Stretford:
Quotas were allocated on the basis of size.

If we were not in the EU we'd have more control over our own territorial waters

Also from Green peace:
Perversely, underpinning the overcapacity are massive EU subsidies, totalling well over one billion euros per year. In 2011, the EU Court of Financial Auditors produced a damning report, which noted that the multi-billion euro European Fisheries Fund designed to balance fishing activities at sustainable levels was actually doing the reverse. Grotesquely, European taxpayers are effectively paying fishermen to destroy the continent's natural capital.

The EU state that benefits the most from subsidies is Spain, but the Dutch have also got in on the act. Parlevliet & Van der Plas, the company behind the super trawler at the centre of the recent controversy has been heavily favoured, receiving direct and indirect subsidies of more than E55 million in the last two decades. Subsidies appear critical to the business model of Parlevliet. Without subsidies, the firm may have even lost money in recent years.

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/super-trawlers-are-feeding-on-eu-fishing...

In reply to Big Ger:



That's an old article, EU policy has changed

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/23/eu-vote-curtail-fishing-...

Great work by the Green parties in the EU parliament, and Greenpeace, eh?

It's now down to the UK government. The EU is flawed, but we do have a habit of blaming our own shortcomings on the EU as well.

In reply to summo:

There's the rub, there isn't another gig to go to. Ukippers might fantasize about a 'commonwealth' free market, but it is just fantasy. The US has made its position clear.

So we could go it alone, but the only time we've done that in the last two centuries, was in the late 60s/seventies, and that period is seen as an economic low for the UK.

Not saying the EU is perfect..... far from it, many flaws, but we have to be realistic.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

5 dislikes.. So many of you preach democracy yet want the minority to dictate. You have no idea about true democracy.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Perhaps the original gig we booked in 75, a free trade area. No currency, military, or legal union? No ever closer....

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Can you explain how farming subsidies are sold off to those with no connection to the land?

In reply to summo:


Some of that is what Cameron is trying to negotiate

http://www.policy-network.net/pno_detail.aspx?ID=4998&title=Britain+no+...

we won't get just a free trade area ie free movement won't change, but they might meet in the middle.

On the evidence of this thread many seem to have decided already regardless, or will vote on things that don't affect the UK. Very emotive rather than rational, and could be one of the biggest 'cut your nose to spite your face' in history.

In reply to summo:


What seems to happen is that when land is sold the previous landowner can retain the farm payments that relate to the land. There are extra requirements (such as a minimum total hectarage before agricultural payments can be claimed) but there is no requirement that the payments are claimed by the current landowner (or user).

In reply to Dave Garnett:

You can only claim if you have farmed the land that year, if the land changes hands mid year, then there will be split payments, unless both parties come to an agreement to start fresh in the next year. General the person who did the work or made the investment, receives the subsidy.
Yes, very small holdings don't qualify, but there has to be a cut off, otherwise people would be applying for their back gardens. No reason why several smallholders can't form a collective. Common land grazing associations do this.
Like to see you link anything that says the land owner or user doesn't have to be the claimant, as you claim for either an action carried out or specific use of the land? Perhaps my experience of cap differs to yours though.

In reply to Babika:

Out. Whole heartedly. For numerous reasons.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think the social attitudes survey shows that everybody shares the same concern about the EU, however when it comes to an in/out question all the polls whether they are online or by phone show a marked difference.

As far as the independence debate goes, for me eu membership and indyref are really just one issue. The best deal for Scotland is probably to stay in the UK and the UK stays in the EU, unfortunately I fear that we'll be dragged out. Vice versa it could well be that Scotland causes England to stay in, not sure whether that would be politically sustainable either.

In reply to Babika:

A serious question for the "IN" voters - if staying in the EU involved us having to give up the pound and adopt the Euro, would you still vote to stay in?

If "yes", why?

If "no", why not?

JW

In reply to John Ww:
I would be completely torn on that one - not because I care what symbol appears before the number on my credit card bill, but because of having to effectively give up many of the Bank of England's powers - given that the Bank has done quite well in managing our economy over the past few years since having been given a bit more independence by Labour in the 1990s/early 2000s.

But I feel that scenario very unlikely.

In reply to John Ww:
I would say yes, partly because in such a scenario the UK would actually bring the votes and influence necessary to reform the eurozone in a way that doesn't profit only net exportering countries, which is currently not possible in a Germany centric eurozone.

In reply to Bootrock:


Go on, enlighten us. I bet you've got some really powerful, well thought out arguments.

In reply to John Ww:

I think we should have the euro..

A gloal banking system makes sense, at the moment its unworkable the major currencies should align more.

Its screwed up that I can move to the US and have no credit history.. yet having paid off a mortgage. I was billed to pay off debts in other countries but when I ask for credit here based on credit elsewhere.. 'oh sorry you have no credit history'..

It's just screwed up..

Back on track, one europe, one currency, however for the euro to work we need to give up a lot of control of our economics. It cant work as it is now. I think give countries guidelines, limiits for each area and let them have some flexibility but we have to be more consistent in our approach to tuition fees, pensions, welfare, taxes.. etc. It cant work until that changes.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Globally currency? The Eu has proved you can't have currency union, unless you have full political union, ie one global parliament etc.. the euro doesn't work. Compared to the world there aren't many countries in the Euro, but the divide between the nations is massive.

Maybe in a few hundred years.
The euro has guidelines and most countries cooked the books to enter it, those that were financially sound sat back and allowed it.

In reply to Babika:

Looks like the markets globally are bracing for a crash, let's see what the eu and Euro looks like by July.

In reply to Babika:

In.

Even if we were outside the EU we would still have to follow EU rules (as Norway and Switzerland do) but with no voice in shaping them. Also, as others have said, sometimes the most local effective level for a decision or negotiation is for the whole of Europe.

It seems to me that the big mistake the EU leaders have made is pushing an ever closer (and bigger) union and collecting extra powers without proving they can do a good job with the ones they already have and taking the people with them. That said, we have so many personal, cultural and business ties with the other European countries that I'm sure the tides of history are going that way in the long term.

In reply to JMGLondon:


Indeed. And a 'decent free trade deal' would require us to obey all the rules & regs anyway.

We wouldn't just need to negotiate one trade deal though, we'd need to negotiate all of them, with everybody.

And since we currently have no trade negotiators of our own, our new trade agreements with every other nation on the planet would be negotiated in effect by office temps with a bad attitude: an army of greased weasels procured from management consultancies and the big accountancy companies on lucrative short-term contracts, negotiating deals that might be binding for decades with one eye on their own vested interests.

In reply to summo:


That's a good reason to maintain the status quo. We are in the fortunate grouping that have EU membership and independent monetary policy.

In reply to NathanP:


And make financial contributions that are almost as much as if they were in. Crazy but true.

In reply to summo:


Hmmm. Actually, this is something I need to look into. All I know is I'm not getting it!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'm actually starting to wonder if there will be a referendum if the polls start to suggest it would likely result in a BREXIT.

In reply to NathanP:


Still, it doesn't seem to be doing either of them too much harm
http://www.aneki.com/europe_richest.html

Anyway, our economy is 2.5 times bigger than Switzerland and Norway combined so we've got rather more bargaining power. Europe also sells more to us than we do to them so its not in their interest to make life difficult, they've more to lose than we have.

In reply to pec:

I don't disagree with either if your points but one of the arguments given for leaving is that it would free us from Brussels imposed red tape. My point was simply that, assuming we wanted to continue to have access to the single market, like Norway and Switzerland, we would still have to follow EU rules but would have given up the chance to shape them.

In reply to Babika:
And the UKC result is....

In 46
Out 13

Pretty overwhelming really. Call Me Dave has nothing to fear.

In reply to Babika:

I'm still troubled by that 13. Surprised it's that high.

In reply to NathanP:

They just haven't thought it through for a millisecond. The idea that the 'red tape' regarding trading would be reduced is just ridiculous wishful thinking. I'm sure, because we'd then be competing with them, that they would make it a whole lot more difficult for us. Which would be perfectly fair enough. Not sure how our relations with trade outside Europe would improve, even if they got no worse. Brexit is just such an obvious all-round lose-lose option.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Apparently some polls are putting the outs ahead by a few points, but then we learned recently they're not always right.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I think you will find a much higher percentage voting out come the referendum.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I'm a strong "in" but that sort of claim is both arrogantly condescending and complacent. Of course people who want out have thought things through, they just come to different conclusions to you.

In reply to rossowen:

Yeah, but referendums are dead scary. Because so emotive. I think it will be seen as one of the great scandals of British history that something this crude was ever contemplated, even allowed, for a very difficult decision of this kind that requires expert knowledge. Particularly, once we were already signed up to it. I sympathise hugely with our European partners on this, re our pathetic, dangerous party-political games, not to mention fundamental (un-British) dishonesty. What a load of crap this slogan 'A better deal for Britain' is. We've had a very good deal, and it's benefited parts of our country enormously. I won't budge on this, even if I get about half a million 'dislikes' from faceless people who don't want to discuss it with me openly.

In reply to MG:


Well it's certainly not complacent, but a genuine expression of my frustration that many people are going into this completely emotionally. Where I get really angry is when I think of all my (and your) ancestors who fought (and died) in two world wars to create a more unified and harmonious Europe. And they seem to be quite happy now to just tear it all up, and quite possibly plunge us into conflict again.

I, for one, won't forgive them if my worst fears are proved right.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Why is this fundamentally dishonest?
I don't see this being any different from offering Scotland an independence referendum. The Government pledged an EU referendum at the general election and should stand by that pledge and I don't doubt that won them a lot of votes.
The people will have spoken and we will all have to get on with it. It's not going to be the end of the world whatever the outcome.

In reply to Gone for good:

The thing is, although Gordon is, I'm sure, a big fan of democracy, he doesn't actually want the plebs to be able to vote because they're so thick he can't be sure they'll tick the right box.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I agree I hate it when people do that.
ermmmm


Strange I thought the wars were really about avoiding a unified Europe. Certainly in WWI a major factor in the UK getting involved was the traditional British hobby of playing European powers off against each other to try and minimise any one getting dominance.
If you are going to accuse people of emotional and unthinking arguments probably best to avoid doing the same.
It could be as easily argued that the half arsed handling of the integration of different economies would be as likely to lead to conflict. I dont think either are that likely but there is a case to be made for both.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Well I don't think WW1 and WW2 were fought on behalf of the EU but rather on behalf of freedom and democracy. My Dad fought in the war and voted Out in 1975.

I actually think that you are being a bit emotional about this and should respect the democratic outcome whatever it is.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

There is a case to be made for the plebs not being able to tick the right box. I know I dont think I really have sufficient information to make an informed judgement and suspect it would be rather hard to get hold of that information without bias being applied. Everyone is subject to spin one way or another.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

At what point do you draw the line? Anything that affects the future of a nation is extremely complex, including electing a government. Should we get rid of elections as a command economy would be far more efficient? We can't have emotions getting in the way.


I don't recall the idea of the EU being mentioned in the referendum over a Common Market, which was was the UK signed up for. Everything else is political ambition on behalf of an intellectual elite who don't like the idea of ignorant plebs having a say.


Party political games and dishonesty are the stock in trade of politicians, including those in Brussels and Strasbourg.


The counter argument is we are a net contributor, so could have benefitted parts of our country even more. The stock answer to that is that our Government is too inept/corrupt to have done that. Other than a belief that politicians in the EU are pure, saintly and far superior to the UK, why is the EU any more likely to make decisions that benefit the UK? It's the 'British cringe', we're too stupid to run our own affairs, we need the EU to do it for us.


That doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it?

In reply to Babika:


My Dad was very much of the opinion he was fighting against the Germans, not for a European Union that hadn't been invented then.


^ This.

If this was just about being part of a trading block then the advantages are obvious to being in the EU. But it's not, it's about lofty political ideals and intellectual dreams that cannot possibly be allowed to fail, no matter what gets in the way.

In reply to Ridge:


Elections are not the same as referendums. By voting for an MP you are in effect voting for some intelligent, knowledgeable person to represent you, and, in the broadest possible terms, to speak and argue on your behalf.


Your memory it quite short, I think. Before that, and particularly before Mrs. T, I remember the discussion being much broader. There was all the stuff with the Club of Rome, for starters. I remember the idea of European Union always preceding the much narrower idea of (simply) a Common Market.


What are you talking about? Do you really think that 'we' would have helped Scotland and Wales as much as the EC has? We are a net contributor because we are strong, and accept the basic tenets of the EU ... Don't we?

>... why is the EU any more likely to make decisions that benefit the UK?

Because they're forced to do it by European laws.

>It's the 'British cringe', we're too stupid to run our own affairs, we need the EU to do it for us.

Utter bilge. We run our own affairs very well, and our better politicians work closely with our European partners to try to make everything run better at a wider, European level.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Nothing like a good old-fashioned bit of intransigence then Gordon.

Just as an aside, I currently spend about one third of my life in various parts of Europe - want to guess which way I'll be voting?

JW

In reply to John Ww:


Assuming that the one third of your life that you spend in Europe is to do with business interests, obviously you'll be voting In.

In reply to Martin Hore:


I take a slightly different view. If the majority vote out then I'm happy to leave: it will likely be better for the EU that it isn't encumbered with a petty-minded UK that wants no part of it anyway. It will also be a rude awakening for us and we'll likely be left eating humble pie as our economy declines and all the benefits of EU membership we enjoyed are eroded. Someone needs to leave to show just how negative the experience will be, otherwise to many the grass will always look greener. Undeniably, as much as I, and seemingly much of UKC, enjoy being European, a substantial proportion of the UK would dearly love to return to the 1950s, and the idea that not being in Europe would allow us to be an empire again. Utterly misguided of course, but again, let them have a crack at it and be decisively proven wrong.


Indeed. I suspect the "out" voters would far rather we inherited a US style system of "flexible" labour laws. My wife is currently undertaking some social work in up-state New York. The full horror of their divided society, workers employed in hugely unstable and unreliable work, and in conditions where prison (as harsh as it is in the US) is very much a least-bad option for many, is not something we should aspire to. The EU, for all its costs and faults, sets a fantastic example to the world.

In reply to pec:


they've more to lose than we have.

That second statement isnt true...

If europe loses our trade its a much smaller % than we would lose.

Also the US want is in the EU. It WILL have knock on effects on US/UK trade.

In reply to pec:


But the pain for Europe would be spread over a large number of European countries. The pain for the UK is restricted to, well, the UK.

The argument that we would be spared waste and inefficiency in the EU by not being part of it doesn't really weigh up in my opinion. We have huge waste and inefficiency in the UK. Its just very easy to point fingers at the EU. I'm just glad we have a largely progressive enterprise of the union that can ameliorate the worst excesses of national governments.

In reply to David Martin:

The pain is already spread to northern Europe from the south. If we were in efta, same rules less cost. As a non Euro nation our influence is less anyway, than we would like to think.

In reply to summo:
EFTA will not be an option. A small cost saving, if anything, and all eu rules apply apart from agriculture and fisheries. Many Britons will be voting on other issues such as immigration, they will not be very happly if a no vote leads to no changes there. We don't have referendum for minor changes.

In reply to Mike Stretford: it is more than a little cheaper to be in efta than the EU as a full member. But, the negotiations won't come to much of significance. The EU won't admit it needs to change, the senior elite dare not admit it, so they'll stay on the dream. Why would they change, very well paid, massive pension after only 1 term in office for every euro MP, it's longest gravy train in the world. Strasbourg.

The UK could save the EU and the Euro by leaving. The EU would be forced to reform, blaming the lack of money from the UK, rather than the real reasons. It gives them a get out clause. Win win.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


An incorrect assumption, followed by an incorrect conclusion.

JW

In reply to John Ww:



So, your European connection isn't related to business and Gordon's conclusion can't be incorrect.

Is that In or Out then?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Funny how everyone becomes "tories" when arguing to stay in Europe....it's all about business and money making

I suspect that Merkels solo decision to allow free entry to millions from the ME into Europe, in conjunction with Shengen, plus the Cologne/Helsinki/Sweden sex attacks and the attempted cover up of them, the continuing terrorist incidents globally but mainly the ones in Europe, will be the dominating factor for many voters rather than business/head office locations and losing a place "at the table" to influence decisions in Brussels (lol!)

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Most of the (rational) arguments about leaving are one-sided financial and trade assumptions, so of course those need to be countered. I work in the European part of a multinational company and I can see the huge business advantages of a pan-European legal and IP structure, for instance. However, my core belief in Europe is based on internationalism, and social and environmental considerations.


Sadly, I think you're right. The obvious corollary to the relaxation of internal border controls under Schengen was that external borders needed to be more diligently enforced. Given that the important external land borders happen to be in the poorer and less well-organised parts of the EU, this was an expensive nettle that needed to be grasped. It's very unfortunate that the referendum is coming up just when this has become a crisis.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
"It's very unfortunate that the referendum is coming up just when this has become a crisis. "

Which is why my conspiracy head tells me that another big terrorist attack on mainland Europe (perish the thought) or more revelations/cover ups re sexual assaults and they will pull the referendum (no idea what reason they would give for pulling it) if there is real fear of losing it. i'm not usually this cynical, but when it comes to big decisions like this about Europe I start to lose faith.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I'm not certain on this but isn't it now a law that we have to have a referendum or is it just that IF we have one it has to be by the end of 2017? A law to that effect was passed by parliament.
Of course, if David cameron pulled the plug on a referendum all hell really would break loose in the Conservative party and given that their rules do actually allow them to kick out their leaders he wouldn't be PM for very long.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


And jobs. Concern over the economy is certainly not restricted to Tories...... unemployment blights communities.


I can understand the knee jerk reaction to all this is isolationism, but Brexit really would be counter productive in terms of policing UK borders.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11946146/If-Brexit-...

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I think that telegraph story is small fry compared to the fear of millions of immigrants getting european passports and then free to move wherever within Europe (however unlikely any of that might be).

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

In reality the impact of the UK border guards being moved back to the UK would be huge, but you're right in terms of 'fear' I don't think people really understand that. I expect it will be the kind of thing the 'Yes' campaign stress.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Europes changing fast. Schengen vs fences, "Oh east is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet" ...maybe we should be buying shares in Umirs

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/15/perimeter-protection-business-...