It really is another world, isn't it?

[Jacob]

In case you'd not noticed - we've had zilch influence for the past 43 years. Why does anyone think that's suddenly going to change?

You get out what you put in. If we have eurosceptic MEPs we get the worst of both worlds!

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ave-europe

 

[Sheffield Tony]

As AJB says, go to Germany and you'll see the road is full of German cars, same in France. Now I know I mentioned Jag and Land Rover and I do appreciate that we can't all drive them. If you look back then we get to Rover and they really were the last big British car manufacturer. Yet they closed, people blame government etc but if we the British public aren't buying their cars then surely it's us that's at fault. If everyone in the UK bought British cars Rover would be flourishing.

Both France and Italy seem quite nationalistic in their buying habits. We disloyal British don't support our own industry. You'd expect France and Italy to have flourishing economies then.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In case you'd not noticed - we've had zilch influence for the past 43 years. Why does anyone think that's suddenly going to change?

You get out what you put in. If we have eurosceptic MEPs we get the worst of both worlds!

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... ave-europe

Except the Eurosceptic MEPs came after and possibly because of the lack of influence.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

EU commissioners are as democratically elected to the post as much as the UK Prime Minister. By that I mean they are not. Just as the PM is appointed so are they, and what gets my goat here in good ol' blighty is, that ours is appointed by another appointee who is not directly elected by the British people. After all, remember, the party leader of each party selected (recent Labour events aside) only by the parliamentary party members of each not the general electorate. whoever wins is then the person appointed as PM if that party wins an election. NO British voter has ever voted for a PM only a local representative MP.

When we go to the polling booth for a Westminster election, we do know who the leaders of the main political parties are, so we have a pretty fair idea who will be Prime Minister depending on which party gains a majority. Indeed, we have a fair idea who the leading Cabinet Ministers are likely to be, too - if not their exact roles every time. I'm sure that influences how some people cast their votes. It's also the case that the government - the executive - is formed almost exclusively from elected MPs, and is held to account by the legislature - Parliament - in the form of elected MPs.

I do accept that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the parties are not always the same as the major Westminster parties, but most of the 'Nats' do tend to align with one or other of the two main political leanings, so a vote cast for them will have some influence on government's direction, even if it is at second hand, as it were.

The problem with the EU arrangements as currently practiced is that we can vote for a parliament that seems never to use any influence or authority it might have, but we don't vote for (nor can we hold to account) those who do exercise authority.

It's taken many centuries for the UK system to evolve, with Parliament being first a gathering of Nobles, and the ordinary folk having no vote at all. Gradually, the franchise has extended to property owners, then to the male population over a certain age, then - only comparatively recently - to the entire adult population (with the exception of a few - Lords, those serving a prison sentence and the certified insane). Individually, our political power is tiny, being limited to one vote each at any election, but collectively it does determine the general direction of Westminster governance. It could take decades or generations for that to become the case with the EU institutions; I don't think it's a good idea to vote away what has taken us centuries to achieve - it's just too precious to lose.

Am I the only one disappointed by the National debate so far? Claims and counter-claims, dodgy forecasts of economic future, security, you name it - trying to sort out 'facts' from all the noise and mud-slinging (from both sides of the debate) really isn't easy. I suppose I'm not really surprised, but given that it could determine the nation's direction for generations, I think it all deserves a bit more considered appraisal that it's getting. Thus, the ordinary voter has to fall back on good old 'gut feeling' - and my gut says the EU is a mess that the British people would be better free of. Historically, Britain has always been at it's best, both for it's inhabitants and for what it's contributed to the wider world, when it's been at it's most free. Hence, I'm for Brexit.

 

[lurker]

As has been mentioned the accounts have not been signed off for years
The Eurocrats have shown no interest in doing their job properly and sorting this out.
So long as the net payers keep coughing up they never will.
The number of "givers" decreases whilst the "takers" grow.

For that reason I'm out.
If we leave, the whole sorry mess will quickly collapse but just sooner rather than later.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The usual argument is that they have been signed off - by their own auditors. No independent auditor would touch them with a barge pole. We entered the EEC (which I voted against in '75) in 1973, and in only one year since have we pulled out more than we've paid in. 1975 ... curious, that ... :lol:

 

[Sheffield Tony]

Am I the only one disappointed by the National debate so far? Claims and counter-claims, dodgy forecasts of economic future, security, you name it - trying to sort out 'facts' from all the noise and mud-slinging (from both sides of the debate) really isn't easy. I suppose I'm not really surprised, but given that it could determine the nation's direction for generations, I think it all deserves a bit more considered appraisal that it's getting. Thus, the ordinary voter has to fall back on good old 'gut feeling' - and my gut says the EU is a mess that the British people would be better free of. Historically, Britain has always been at it's best, both for it's inhabitants and for what it's contributed to the wider world, when it's been at it's most free. Hence, I'm for Brexit.

The reason there is not more considered appraisal is, IMHO, because nobody knows. How the remaining states of the EU will be disposed to us if we leave. How it will affect non-EU nations looking to invest in manufacturing facilities here. How many years (or decades) it will take to untangle ourselves. Much of it is more psychology than economics, and there is more certainty to be found in betting on horses.

What is certain is that we will still have to follow all those EU regulations if we want to stick a CE mark on stuff and sell it in Europe. But we will have no say in the develoment of the rules which we will have to abide by.

I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.

 

[Jacob]

The usual argument is that they have been signed off - by their own auditors. No independent auditor would touch them with a barge pole. We entered the EEC (which I voted against in '75) in 1973, and in only one year since have we pulled out more than we've paid in. 1975 ... curious, that ... :lol:

It's not curious at all - it's not about a simple exchange of cash benefits.
There are a a host of other benefits which don't come up on balance sheets but which should be considered nevertheless. Some of them merely commercial but others affecting the way we live in many advantageous ways

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Am I the only one disappointed by the National debate so far? Claims and counter-claims, dodgy forecasts of economic future, security, you name it - trying to sort out 'facts' from all the noise and mud-slinging (from both sides of the debate) really isn't easy. I suppose I'm not really surprised, but given that it could determine the nation's direction for generations, I think it all deserves a bit more considered appraisal that it's getting. Thus, the ordinary voter has to fall back on good old 'gut feeling' - and my gut says the EU is a mess that the British people would be better free of. Historically, Britain has always been at it's best, both for it's inhabitants and for what it's contributed to the wider world, when it's been at it's most free. Hence, I'm for Brexit.

The reason there is not more considered appraisal is, IMHO, because nobody knows. How the remaining states of the EU will be disposed to us if we leave. How it will affect non-EU nations looking to invest in manufacturing facilities here. How many years (or decades) it will take to untangle ourselves. Much of it is more psychology than economics, and there is more certainty to be found in betting on horses.

What is certain is that we will still have to follow all those EU regulations if we want to stick a CE mark on stuff and sell it in Europe. But we will have no say in the develoment of the rules which we will have to abide by.

I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.

The risks of staying in are unknown and unquantifiable, too. The future is anybody's guess. The one thing we do know is that if we leave, our votes at a general election will help to determine the country's direction. We won't have that power in the EU, because we can't vote for the people that make the decisions - or hold them to account through the ballot box.

 

[Jacob]

..... We won't have that power in the EU, because we can't vote for the people that make the decisions - or hold them to account through the ballot box.

Not so - we vote for MEPs and we vote for MPs who also have influence in the EU. It's a democratic institution, not perfect, but better than the alternatives!

All this timidity about the future - one thing is certain; we'd have more control of it if we were in rather than out.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/ ... otiations/

 

[novocaine]

I'm more worried about what we aren't being told by each side than what we are at the moment. comments made by the USA (or it's representative at present, Mr Obama) to the end that the UK would be at the bottom of the pile for trade agreements is worrying (yet it was a one liner on the news before getting back to the important stuff like who's banging who in what way), whilst they aren't a major market share for us as such they are still one of the major players in the international market and can drive it to their will. EU has trade agreements with them ( and other non EU countries which we are unlikely to be able to reach agreement with outside of the EU). we leave, and we lose some of that safety. it keeps being screamed that we are not a manufacturing country anymore, this is true for the most part, we do not produce heavy industry like we used to, but we do still manufacture, very high tech and very specific equipment that is sold around the globe, without EU backing this is likely to become harder. i the modern globilised market we can not stand alone, it's insane to believe we can, we are a small nation with limited resource, most of which we have sold off in short sighted money grabbing ways.
the same thing that Scotland touted in their bid for freedom is being spouted for the UK, we can be like Norway, a non EU member who has trade agreements. how many years do you think it took for them to achieve this? why do you think they managed it (hint, because they've got a shed load of gas and oil and don't really use it), do you believe we have the same assets to sell (no we do not) and do you think they aren't having to follow the same laws you are trying to escape by leaving the EU in order to sell there? (another hint, yep they do and they get absolutely no say in what laws they have to follow to do this, they don't follow it, they don't sell to the EU).
do we have power in the EU? yes we do, we have 13% of votes, but it isn't that simple, we have members on the committee which vote for certain important things, but that isn't quite so straight forward either, you want to know more go research it.
Leaving the EU will cost us, there is not really a debate about that, the problem is how much it will cost us, something that's impossible to say. it will cost us to stay as well, but is that cost more than leaving? again, not possible to say, but from all external sources it looks like we will be worse if we leave.

I guess the real issue is that it's impossible to be impartial in the UK on this subject, outside guidance is needed but isn't forthcoming. I'm on the stay side, but only just and can't really put my finger on the detail enough to push me either way.

oh and only site I've found so far that has a fairly unbiased view is https://fullfact.org/europe/
this isn't to say that it's not biased, it is to say that it's the only one I've found that doesn't look to be biased.

good luck, I hope the media frenzy dies down and we actually get truthful and easy to understand information that allows us to vote the right way.

 

[lurker]

I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.

I think if we stay in you can say exactly the same.

Many forget the the predictions that the UK was going to go down the pan becuse we did not adopt the Euro

 

[lurker]

The usual argument is that they have been signed off - by their own auditors. No independent auditor would touch them with a barge pole. We entered the EEC (which I voted against in '75) in 1973, and in only one year since have we pulled out more than we've paid in. 1975 ... curious, that ... :lol:

It's not curious at all - it's not about a simple exchange of cash benefits.
There are a a host of other benefits which don't come up on balance sheets but which should be considered nevertheless. Some of them merely commercial but others affecting the way we live in many advantageous ways

The numbers dont add up because of the wide scale corruption.
My B in Law has a fruit farm in Spain, he claimed a grant for the same work 3 times (after 2 years the original claim is archived so there is no checks) over 10 years and just pockets the cash.
And compared to the folks around him he is an honest bloke, the locals don't see a problem because the money is coming from foreigners.

 

[lurker]

I'm not 100% but I believe the EEC still give out grants to tobacco growers :shock:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It subsidised the French to plant apple trees when it was subsidising our orchard owners (who grow them better) to tear them up, and it subsidised our inshore fishermen to decommision 20' boats on the pretence of looking after fish stocks - at the same time as it was subsidising the building of Spanish beam trawlers. The subsidised tobacco farms used to be Greek - they've probably ceased to exist now ... I mean the farms, not the subsidies.

 

[mind_the_goat]

As has been mentioned the accounts have not been signed off for years

Another well known EU 'fact'.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
Accounts ARE signed off every year, there are generally a few percent of payments that may not have fully met the rules but this is not the same as money being unaccounted for.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I'm for in - the risks of leaving are unknown and unquantifiable.

I think if we stay in you can say exactly the same.

I don't understand how you can believe that. Retaining the status quo is pretty much always more predictable* than making a big change.
But then neither do I understand the view of those who believe that leaving the EU will make no difference to the remaining EU members wanting to do business with us - we are bound to drop some way down the list of preferred suppliers.

* Note I said predictable, desireable is a different argument.

 

[lurker]

As has been mentioned the accounts have not been signed off for years

Another well known EU 'fact'.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
Accounts ARE signed off every year, there are generally a few percent of payments that may not have fully met the rules but this is not the same as money being unaccounted for.

I refer you to my honourable Cornish friend's post at the top of page 4, :lol:
It's exactly this twisting of words that makes me distrust the Eurocrats

 

[mind_the_goat]

It is one of those 'simple facts' for which a Yes/No answer is not sufficient, hence the link.
Your point does raises an interesting question in my mind. Does any national government accounting ever get audited and 'signed off' ? Independently or otherwise. It's certainly not something I've ever heard of. Do we have anything to compare EU accounting management with ?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In 1975, we were told we were voting to be members of a free trade area. Well - it didn't quite turn out like that, did it? Some people say we were lied to. Maybe, maybe not - but we certainly were not told the whole truth. What makes anybody think we'll get the whole truth this time round? I don't really think the debate will become any clearer; indeed, I rather suspect it will become even more bitter, acrimonious and confusing.

On trade - there won't be any real difference to the UK's trade position in or out in the short term. In the long term, it might make a difference, but in the long term, who knows what will happen anyway? There's a lot of huffing and puffing about 'free trade deals', which I think is a bit of a distraction, since the lack of a free trade deal doesn't mean no trade. The EU and the USA don't currently have a free trade deal (it's being negotiated), but that doesn't mean you can't buy a Lie-Nielsen plane in the UK, or that Ashley Iles can't sell chisels in America. The same will be the case if we do leave the EU.

Would they slap huge tariffs on UK products and services? No, because they don't want to risk ***-for-tat tariffs on imports into the world's fifth largest economy. Stifling trade, in the end, benefits nobody.

Could the UK stand alone trading in the world? Of course it could - we're the world's fifth largest economy - a huge market for all sorts of other people. Besides, we've been a trading nation for centuries, and very good at it too quite often; so we just keep on doing what we've always done, going after the opportunities as they arise. We could do very well indeed outside the EU - the latter is hardly an dynamic and growing economic powerhouse at the moment.

This - for me - really comes down to being able to vote for, and hold to account through the ballot box, the people who govern us. Oddly, that's a factor that has not really been discussed at all in the national debate so far, which has concentrated on narrow points about trade and very debatable points about security. I wonder why governance and who selects it hasn't been discussed much?