Terry - Somerset":spuzgaxx said:
The referendum is a once in a lifetime (or at least generation) chance to vote. It is potentially life changing for ourselves and our children. We should not be distracted by what is really trivia - often the sort of stuff politicians and media focus on to the exclusion of what is actually important.
EU intrusion in day to day life is mostly trivial. Schools and health services can be fixed by the government if they have the will and a bouyant economy to fund it. I don't care about the shape of tomatoes or cucumbers - although regulations on vegetable size create waste. I am not worried about immigration. Their work is of value in the community and competition drives prices down and quality up.
The big things are the economy, sovereignty and security.
I have no doubt that the economy will suffer materially if we leave. Despite glib assertions, we will not quickly sign new trade deals etc. At best we will have a rough ride for 5 years+ as inward investment falls and new deals (hopefully) set up. Thereafter its just guesswork.
Sovereignty is emotive - but ask yourself whether (a) you really have greater trust in a Westminster elite and (b) how is your life materially adversely impacted by being 1 of 28.
Security is partly a NATO function, but I see no real benefits in leaving and a lot of risks. Jaw-jaw and trade-trade is far better than war-war. Membership can only make the chance of a repeat performance of 1914 and 1939 much less likely.
In the 1970's the UK was the basket case of Europe. Even rose tinted spectacles don't make the memory any sweeter. I am strongly in - although I accept that some may have seen serious personal consequences of membership. But be objective - this is far more important than simply an opportunity to vent frustration with the current government or annoying EU trivia.
Terry, I agree that this is more important than the trivia some seem concerned about.
However, I disagree strongly on two points. Firstly, you don't need a trade deal in order to trade, you just go and trade (under WTO rules, tariffs are quite small anyway compared to the days of old). At least one nation, New Zealand, has already expressed interest in a free trade deal, and negotiating one-with-one trade deals will be much quicker than, for example, the TTIP deal between the USA and 28 other countries all with their own issues. The UK has a very long history of trade and enterprise, and freed of some of the constraints we currently have because of EU trade rules, we could do very well indeed. I'd go further, and say that freedom to act is very much in the UK's trading interests.
More importantly, the matter of Parliamentary democracy. The Westminster government is elected by the ordinary people to act on their behalf, and if they feel that it isn't, the government can be elected out and another given a chance, as happened in 1979, 1997 and 2010. The people making the decisions are drawn from the elected MPs, so if they wish to retain their seats, they do have to take some account of public opinion. Brussels is different - we do not elect those who propose legislation (the Commission), and in consequence they do not have to take any notice of public opinion - note how they forced austerity on Greece despite a clear electoral mandate for a government opposing it. the only thing we're allowed to vote for is the European Parliament, which has no authority to propose or repeal legislation; it's in effect just a toothless talking shop. Any legislation passed by Brussels must automatically be entered onto member states' statute books without the benefit of scrutiny or amendment by national parliaments. Democratic it ain't.
We won't be returning to the 1970s, because we no longer have to burden private enterprise with high taxes in order to pay for loss-making nationalised industry (40% of public spending in 1979).
In summary - if you value democracy, only a sovereign Westminster government can deliver. On trade, the UK will be better off free to do it's own deals.
