Who is in and who is out?

[rafezetter]

Voting to stay in.
I think that we have more influence and power as part of a large grouping, than being a minor isolationist 'Johnny no mates' on the edge of Europe.
When every major political party, the elected government, the trade unions, every major financial body and every other country in the world except Russia and China think we're all better off in the EU, why would anyone with sense think otherwise.
Leaving looks to be a financial disaster for the country and me.

What sort of power and can you point out any situations regarding when the EU has backed down and accepted our version of requirements on a particular topic?

73 times we have tried to veto a law being imposed on us that our Govt deemed unfavorable and 73 times the UK's requirements for ammendments have BEEN OVERRULED

We overpaid by a significant amount our "contributions" and brussels REFUSED to return the money, instead adding "sweeteners" to trade etc that didn't even come close to the same sort of amount of money.

WE HAVE NO POWER within the EU, that's not soapboxing, it's just a fact.

Oh and lets not forget there are 5 ridiculously poor and impoverished countries, who are barely more than 3rd world all waiting in the wings, with barely a functional govt between all 5 of them, who will all be granted powers of veto over us - (and asking for money).

All of the "benefits" people think we enjoy being part of the EU, can be gotten other ways with no loss to us. Jobs? no problem - entry into another country with a job all ready to go happens in many other countries without a hitch. I live near both MOD and HP main bases in Bristol and every single one of the foreign nationals I've spoken to have all said it was simple and painless to come here on a work visa.

How having an open travel border with all its inherant risks changes this I have no idea - especially since half of them are from NON EU COUNTRIES, where the open border doesn't even apply!

I honestly think the majority of people who say they are voting in haven't read a damn thing about the realities and are just going by the cronies on TV from both sides, both of which are not doing a very convincing job either way.

I honestly think the "out" vote will fail because there are too many "not a clue's" and not enough educated and informed voters.

 

[RogerS]

The sooner it is abandoned in favour of each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign,.

when has that ever worked in the past ?
Germany is a federation created from smaller states, as is Italy, USA, even the UK.

It worked pretty well before that over-bloated, bureaucratic self-serving EU was formed.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"A Norwegian politician made an interesting relevant point - because Norway is small it needs to respond flexibly to events around it (like Chile??), but the UK wants to set the agenda and expects others to conform to its wishes." - Terry
No. The UK should set the agenda ... for the UK. Others can set their own. Where influence is concerned we've had 43 years of futility - how much more time do we need?
Besides which - isn't there an element of truth in saying that who pays the piper maybe should have a say in calling the tune? I don't really think that unreasonable, and I object to Countries that have been leeches for years and will be for the lifetime of the EU having equal input to us.
As an aside - how many Americans would have voted for a federation had they realised that the rich states would still subsidise the poor states 200+ years after?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

There isn't "a great project to create a unified single-state Europe".
The EU is about "each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign, but co-operating where there is mutual benefit".
If it went another way we could pull out. Proof? Referendum coming up, if it's a no we pull out, otherwise we wouldn't be having one; "they" would stop us!

Is that not what "Ever Closer Union" really means?

Many countries in Europe are no longer independent, self-governing and sovereign because they've adopted the Euro, so they no longer have full control of their economies. This works OK for the larger, more powerful nations (Germany), but has been an absolute disaster for smaller ones (notably Greece, but Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland have all suffered). By all proper economic measures, the Euro has been a complete failure, but it's being desperately kept alive, using measures illegal under EU law, for the sole political reason that it's essential to Ever Closer Union - building the Single State of Europe. I don't think the misery dished out to smaller countries is a price worth paying for that aim.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The sooner it is abandoned in favour of each nation being independent, self-governing and sovereign,.

when has that ever worked in the past ?
Germany is a federation created from smaller states, as is Italy, USA, even the UK.

It has certainly worked better than previous attempts to 'unify' Europe, all of which have ended in tears for various reasons.

All your other examples work (more or less) because they had a common language and common way of thinking (more or less) at unification.

 

[Rhossydd]

WE HAVE NO POWER within the EU, that's not soapboxing, it's just a fact.

Just like everyone else. It's actually a good and stabilising aspect.
In the same way I don't have any more control over the UK treasury or my local council.

There's a lot wrong with the EU, but overall we're far better off inside than sitting poor on the outside.

For a balanced, well informed and independent view look at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

 

[clk230]

You mean there's educated people that believe 28 different countries can actually agree on matters that don't always affect them .Just look at this thread lots of different views imagine involving 28 different cultures with 28 different motives , just imagine how long it takes just to hear all the views , it can't work take your rose tinted specs off people.
I'm OUT.

 

[Eric The Viking]

The USA pays a huge price for the "Dollar zone", in unemployment.

If, for example, Michigan had its own currency, and its cars became too expensive, it could simply inflate its "Michigan$" to the point where its cars became competitive again. It's not that simple, obviously, but small currency areas and flexible exchange rates are efficient. In their absence, we get disasters like Flint, Detroit and Baltimore in the USA, and Greece and Spain in Europe (OK, there are other factors such as unserviceable debt, too).

Separate currencies for depressed parts of the USA have been seriously suggested by some free market economists there. And even so the separate states have other economic levers they can apply, such as local income and indirect taxation, but it demonstrably isn't enough.

The euro was bonkers from the outset, and the early warning was the collapse of the ERM. It only exists now as a paving, political project. And then there is the staggering hubris of the acquis and harmonization of all kinds of laws and taxation in the interests of a "free" market.

Don't forget that our government can no longer "buy British" except in the one area of defence. All other public expenditure, over a very low threshold (£200k, IIRC) has to go out to pan-European tender. And this gets us worse value for all sorts of reasons, and leads to nonsense like G-Cloud (and other "framework agreement" schemes), and some of the more egregious waste in the NHS etc., with poorly executed contracts or simply failure to deliver, and huge bureaucratic overheads.

I haven't got the energy to continue this today, but the single market is a bad joke, made at our expense.

E.

 

[clk230]

Just how is it a good and stabilising aspect to have rules forced on us by other cultures/countries ???

 

[Grahamshed]

Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?

 

[clk230]

For the same reason I think other countries should keep their noses out of our business , you'll have to ask the Americans

 

[bugbear]

BugBear

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?

In the sense they control their own tax rates and virtually all their own laws to all intents and purposes they are - but still work for the common good, which is as it should be.

 

[RogerS]

WE HAVE NO POWER within the EU, that's not soapboxing, it's just a fact.

Just like everyone else. It's actually a good and stabilising aspect.
In the same way I don't have any more control over the UK treasury or my local council.

There's a lot wrong with the EU, but overall we're far better off inside than sitting poor on the outside.

For a balanced, well informed and independent view look at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

The LSE is not independent !

You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.

 

[Rhossydd]

You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.

I can vote for my MEP which has as much effect as voting for my local councillor.

What's puzzled me is why so many people are moaning about lack of say in Europe when so many of them must have voted for the UKIP MEPs who got elected, but then won't take part.
"I want a say, so I'll vote for someone who won't get involved" makes no sense.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The LSE is not independent !
Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...

 

[Rhossydd]

The LSE is not independent !
Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...

Trust no one eh ?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Most of you seem to think that a United States of Europe would be a bad thing. Do you also think that the united states of America would be better off as independent states ?

I don't think the two are at all comparable. The USA pretty much started (comparatively recently in historical terms) with a more or less common aim - liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all it's citizens. They have a common demos - everybody in America is proud to call themselves American, though they may also be proud to be Texan, Californian or whatever. Europe's history is far longer and more complex, with many of the present countries and borders able to trace their origins back to Pre-Roman tribal times (Gaul, for example - now France) - though the many layers of history since have introduced lots of complexities. Consequently, there are so many different engrained attitudes to life and approaches to the business of government that there is no common demos on which to build.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

The LSE is not independent !
Nor is the CBI, the BBC, the IMF ...

Trust no one eh ?

It's certainly true that many of the large financial organisations have a long history of getting their forecasts wrong. As for the CBI they're standing up for their interests, not necessarily everybody else's. The EU does work well for large, powerful organisations that can afford to lobby in their own interests in Brussels, but not so well for smaller organisations or Joe Public.

 

[RogerS]

You can vote for your local councillors. You can vote for your MP. You CANNOT vote for the ones in the EU that really call the shots.

I can vote for my MEP which has as much effect as voting for my local councillor.
...

Well, if you think that voting for your local councillor doesn't have any effect then no point in you voting then. At least the local councillors are involved with setting the agenda, priorities etc for my locality. The MEP simply plays lip-service in promulgating the goals of the Council of the EU who are non-elected. Not only that but the MEPs get over-ruled by the others most of the time. At least in my local council we don't have 28 separate agendas.