Who is in and who is out?

[RobinBHM]

I'm not actually against European membership but not as it stands. For me to vote remain it would have needed a few key issues addressing and unfortunately Europe didn't want to change its policies and laws to accommodate the UK, so we either need to put up and shut up or walk away

There's the other option of staying in and continuing to press for better policies to control unwanted migration and it's consequences. Most other European countries are waking up to the issues of unwanted population movement and it's likely that sooner, rather than later, the issue will become so pressing it will be addressed and the wide eyed idealism of freedom of movement will be tempered with some widely acceptable compromises.

The malicious xenophobia being whipped up by some sections of the leave campaign is unhelpful and, frankly, unBritish.

Leaving is a dangerous one way ticket. We'd never be able to return to the EU on such favourable terms. At least if common sense prevails we will still retain our options in future.

I think there is quite an element of xenophobia in some parts of the leave campaign, particularly this old argument that foreigners are taking our jobs or undercutting wages.

but I would say that Staying is a dangerous one way ticket. I like Europe and want the UK to be part of Europe, which it always will be. That does not mean we have to within a restrictive union. Trying to get 28 or so countries to agree on common policies is very difficult. Trying to get different countries with different economies to have a common currency is lunacy and has always been flawed. The EU needs huge reform, I wish we could stay in and be part of that reform but we have never had influence, so to me the future of that route seems impossible. We are, I believe between a rock and hard place! (and the current campaigners on both sides havent helped by not starting with a truthful agenda, its all been typical electioneering).

 

[Rhossydd]

But you pose an interesting point, if we were outside the EU and were offered membership on condition we opened our fishing areas, allowed unlimited migration, lost sovereignty to unelected presidents, got tied in to a protectionist economic bloc and have to pay for the privilege , would you actually want to join?

That's not the question though and just cherry picking the things that are less favourable doesn't help provide any clarity.

The other side could be;
Would you want to join the EU if it gave you rights to fish through other country's waters, allowed you a great supply of cheap skilled labour to boost your economy, your citizens given rights to work anywhere else in Europe that offers good opportunities, access other people's cheap eduction systems that are provided in your native language, have a court that could provide a level of human rights and protections our own government won't offer and get economic benefits that far outstrip the membership fee, plus you still get to keep your own currency and have get a better deal than any other member ?
Why wouldn't you ?

 

[Rhossydd]

I would say that Staying is a dangerous one way ticket.

It absolutely isn't.
If it became overwhelming clear that we'd be better off outside of the union at some future time, we would be able to leave just as we can now. At that point there should be some sort of credible plan as to how to exit and what the advantages would definitely be, not just a 'might be if we're lucky'. If the decision was that clear cut it would also be far more widely supported and less contentious.

 

[Jake]

The EU needs huge reform, I wish we could stay in and be part of that reform but we have never had influence, so to me the future of that route seems impossible.

That is so untrue though. Sure, we can't demand anything is done exactly our way every time, but the current EU has been radically shaped by British policy, from its free trade bias (which is not a French ideal, the Germans and Eastern Europeans are our allies there), to the sheer size of it - the huge expansion eastwards was driven by Britain in the Thatcher years, the frustration of Franco-German (Belgian) etc federalist dreams, the existence of opt outs and special status on a whole host of issues, could go on and on.

 

[RogerM]

Interesting blog on what happens following a Brexit win here

 

[stuartpaul]

Interesting blog on what happens following a Brexit win here

Roger,

Funny, entertaining and a bit scary all at the same time!

 

[RobinBHM]

I would say that Staying is a dangerous one way ticket.

It absolutely isn't.
If it became overwhelming clear that we'd be better off outside of the union at some future time, we would be able to leave just as we can now. At that point there should be some sort of credible plan as to how to exit and what the advantages would definitely be, not just a 'might be if we're lucky'. If the decision was that clear cut it would also be far more widely supported and less contentious.

Given that the current polls indicate an almost 50-50 split on voting I would suggest leaving as as widely supported as staying.

 

[thetyreman]

it's very worrying that we may leave the EU to me, the propaganda is working

 

[Phil Pascoe]

it's very worrying that we may stay in the EU to me, the propaganda is working

 

[RogerM]

Let's assume (say) that there is a turnout of 70%, which would be high for a national poll, and the split is pro Brexit 52% to 48%. The result is not binding on the government, so it could be argued that only 36% of those eligible to vote actually voted to come out. It could further be argued that those who didn't vote were "don't knows" and that there is NOT a mandate to leave. Put to a free vote in Parliament, I suspect the "remain" vote to carry the day.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

One thing that can be guaranteed is that the government have explored any conceivable get out. It'll be interesting to see what the outcome is - I can't remember when (with the exception of No.1 child) I last spoke to anyone who wanted in.

 

[Grahamshed]

We have been in the EU ( in whatever its form was at the time ) for 40 odd years. We are responsible for what the EU is as much as any other of the 28

People now talk of the EU being in meltdown and us getting out before it is to late.

Does no-one else feel this is a bit like us being the Rats deserting the sinking ship ?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No, it makes perfect sense to desert a sinking ship. Anyway, for many months pro EU people have been telling us we are doomed to be an insignificant, irrelevant, poverty stricken little grey island somewhere off the periphery of the ever mighty, benevolent and bountiful EU and now they're saying we will be responsible for its demise and even the start of WW3.

 

[Rhossydd]

One thing that can be guaranteed is that the government have explored any conceivable get out.

Quite right too. The democratically elected government and the majority of MPs want the UK to remain in the EU.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Let's assume (say) that there is a turnout of 70%, which would be high for a national poll, and the split is pro Brexit 52% to 48%. The result is not binding on the government, so it could be argued that only 36% of those eligible to vote actually voted to come out. It could further be argued that those who didn't vote were "don't knows" and that there is NOT a mandate to leave. Put to a free vote in Parliament, I suspect the "remain" vote to carry the day.

We should treat people who don't vote, whether in this referendum or any election no matter how small as invisible nonentities. They can vote in person, by post or by proxy - there is no excuse for not voting.

 

[MusicMan]

I am firmly and passionately IN. I voted IN in the 70s and have never regretted it. Of course things can be improved in the EU, but the benefits seem to me immense - economic strength, single market, political negotiating strength, ability to work anywhere in the EU, negotiating strength towards global corporations (I'm sure the EU will sort out tax havens and corporations evading tax by spurious registrations better than UK alone), protection of workers rights that are under great threat from the Brexit side, medical treatment across the EU, and many others. Above all, European peace and the damping down of the evil of nationalism. Cooperation - even involving compromise - to me is far better.

I think labelling Remain as Project Fear is spurious. If there are real problems with a potential course of action it is right to point them out. The chances of economic recession, break up of the UK, and major problems in EU leading to a spate of right-wing nationalism seem to be very real on a Brexit. The quality of the expert opinion on these issues is very telling. As for Gove's remark that we've had enough of experts, let's just say that I'd prefer the advice of this forum on how to cut a dovetail joint than of almost any politician.

The main issues brought up by the Leave side are control and immigration. The control issues, 'take back our country' etc (alarmingly like Donald Trump's rhetoric) are essentially emotional and jingoistic. We already cede absolute sovereignty via thousands of international treaties, most notably NATO and the UN, because we feel that these increase our security, economic strength, social programme, etc. Same for the EU. Since the EU Parliament is elected, and the Commission is appointed by our elected representatives, it is perfectly democratic (much more so than the UK with its unelected second chamber). We won't get our way all the time but the decisions made are really not unreasonable.

I do feel that we have to live with increased immigration whatever our political status. Instead of griping we should welcome immigrants for the extra resource and strength they bring to the country. Who doesn't like a Polish builder or plumber? They don't soak up benefits and they do contribute strongly via taxation. And I'm not a NIMBY here, we have immigrant families on both sides of us.

As a practising scientist before retirement I was involved in several EU projects and found them fantastic. Of course scientists will collaborate whether in or out of the EU, but the extra dimension and funding provided by the EU has immense leverage. The projects went much further and faster than would otherwise have been the case. The framework set by the EU is fair and excellent, and it is true that training and diversity in science and engineering in different countries brings different skills and attitudes to the table.

I don't want to slag off individuals here, but the final argument is that I would much rather be represented and governed by the people leading the Remain campaign than those leading Brexit.

Keith

 

[Phil Pascoe]

One thing that can be guaranteed is that the government have explored any conceivable get out.

Quite right too. The democratically elected government and the majority of MPs want the UK to remain in the EU.

We know that MPs are under no obligation to vote as their constituents wish, but if I were an MP I would be decidedly unhappy at deliberately voting the opposite. Maybe you wouldn't? Bloody plebs getting in the way of the grand plan again?

 

[RogerS]

....

I don't want to slag off individuals here, but the final argument is that I would much rather be represented and governed by the people leading the Remain campaign than those leading Brexit.

Keith

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Gove and Johnson are for Brexit. They are not running for parliament viz a general election.

 

[Jake]

Let's assume (say) that there is a turnout of 70%, which would be high for a national poll, and the split is pro Brexit 52% to 48%. The result is not binding on the government, so it could be argued that only 36% of those eligible to vote actually voted to come out. It could further be argued that those who didn't vote were "don't knows" and that there is NOT a mandate to leave. Put to a free vote in Parliament, I suspect the "remain" vote to carry the day.

The only way the government could avoid implementing the referendum result in reality would be hold another general election to win a mandate to re-run the referendum in the hope that it won the opposite result. That's the cold hard political reality as the government would not be able to sustain itself otherwise, especially with the Conservatives cut in half over the issue.

 

[Woodmonkey]

It's interesting how nearly everyone seems to be vehemently convinced either one way or the other. Am I the only one who thinks that it probably won't be the end of the world which ever way it goes? I can see pros and cons of both sides, and at the end of the day we will still have the same snivelling bunch of politicians in downing st.
On balance i will vote (have already voted by post) to stay in, based more than anything else on the type of people who are telling me to leave, but again I don't really see that much changing either way except for a probable slump in the economy if we leave.
And to those who complain that the eu is undemocratic, take a long hard look at our own "democracy" - an unelected second chamber and head of state, and a first post the post system which effectively makes huge numbers of votes meaningless.