Right, guys, without heated debate, let's have the reasons for UK leaving.

[woolybanana]

1) Not being part of a federal State, ruled by Brussels.

[nomoss]

I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer being ruled by Brussels to being ruled by Paris.

 

 

[woolybanana]

Neither Paris nor Berlin, nor faceless Brussels timewasters.

[Rabbie]

IMO there are no good reasons for leaving. I feel that any advantages from leaving will be more than cancelled out by the disadvantages. At the moment Brussels is blamed for everything that goes wrong in the UK including the weather. Unfortunately leaving the EU is not a magic cure for all our ails despite what Nigel Farage would have us believe. The EU is far from perfect but it is better to reform from within than to stomp off and expect all our problems to disappear

[dave21478]

Its not very democratic of me, but I don't think Joe Public should decide on whether Britain stays or goes. The implications of either staying or leaving go well beyond what the average chap in the street understands, and sadly all the newspapers and politicians boil it down to immigrants/straight cucumbers/paying out millions to get nothing blah blah blah and there is little chance of unbiased, comprehensive reasoning either way ever becoming available.

[Quillan]

I can't think of any, in fact I am disappointed that the UK never joined the Euro, a very stupid mistake. We British are an Island race and in many ways quite unique but at heart we are European for our roots are in Europe. For me and for others from what I have read the choice is simple, stay with the Eu or become more aligned to the USA and I know which one I would prefer any day.

[YCCMB]

This is a supplementary question with no hidden agenda other than a genuine desire to hear people's views: do you think you'd feel differently (or do you feel differently) about the yes/no debate as a non-resident Brit than you would if you lived in the UK?

[NormanH]

It is of course  a hypothetic question since I don't live in the UK, but I was always much more pro-European (as opposed to pro the EU) when I lived there than most of my acquaintances. I never shared the mindless anti-German reflex, and have always taken holidays in European capitals, never being very attracted to the USA, or the far East etc.

I think in that case I would still have been for European integration.

[EuroTrash]

I would like to think I would vote for whatever I thought would be best for the UK - so no my opinion shouldn't change depending on whether I was resident there or not.

But frankly it's so hard to know what to believe out of all the biased garbage that is published on both sides, that I haven't a clue which would be worse. And the shame of it that I'm almost past caring one way or the other. It's been dragging on for too long and there are too many people jumping on too many bandwagons.

[idun]

I voted 'no' to the EEC. I suppose because deep down I didn't trust the way the EEC was going, and I was but a young thing back then, but always politically aware, even then.

I have been thoroughly appalled by the way that Brussels rules have taken over in the UK and to some extent in France. And for all there was great cheering when Thatcher renegociated, we should not have been at that point to start with.

How dare they make a United States of Europe without our say, and they who dare to say that I am not fit to decide, via my vote, I wish that in some way they could lose every last vote that they have.  The people are not too stupid to vote, and the idea that they are, is bviously thoroughly and completely against the democratic process.

It isn't as if I am blinkered, I am quite capable of seeing a wider picture. And I understand that we all need to trade. But did we need the US of E, no, did one of us joe public ever agree? No!

Ofcourse we voted for each government we have had, but at the end of the day, this was just 'one' of each governments policies, and we cannot vote on just 'one' aspect a party mentions. IF we did, then UKIP would get my vote, but ofcourse, they have other policies too and so I have to decide who I vote for, taking all their other policies into account.

[Loiseau]

When we joined, the EC incorporated far fewer countries than it does now, and they were by no means as disparate as today's bunch. So it's not the same outfit as the one we signed up for.

In my heart, I feel we should stay in, but I agree with the other posts, that we are not given rational reasons to decide one way or the other, so I just can't imagine how the referendum will go.

Angela

[Pommier]

To reply to YCCMB's question, I was less pro-EU when we lived in the UK than since we've lived in France, because living in England you believe at least some of the anti-Europe/pro-UK propaganda (best in the world, envy of the world, straight bananas etc), then when you leave the UK you realise that the rest of Europe isn't actually that envious or even that interested in what Britain is doing. 

[Quillan]

Does Brussels control the way all the members do things, I don't think so. Brussels creates EU legislation the leaves it to individual countries to decide if they absorb that legislation in to their own. As far as I can see each country 'cherry picks' what it wants.

Cyprus decided to go outside not to implement EU legislation on unified interest rates and money laundering as one example.

Another is the UK with 'inactives' which is what this recent stuff is about. Now Cameron is talking about limits on people entering the UK form other EU states and that with the exception of the 6 months rule will be basically absorbing most of the EU legislation on inactives which is what France did in 2007 and all that trouble of Brits being thrown out of the French health system was all about.

All that's stuff that remains of the now defunct 'Sellers Pack' that people had to produce to sell their house, some of it like the 'efficiency' with regards to heat loss etc is actually EU legislation which the UK has now absorbed just like France then each country has added country specific bits to it.

There is loads of stuff like this, the proposal to do MOT's every 2 years is really EU legislation.

Seems to me if something is a brilliant idea from the EU then the politicians claim it for their own, if it does not work in the UK or goes belly up then it's the EU. I believe its called having your cake and eating it.

Parity with car insurance, yes great idea and quite correct but did anyone really think insurance would go up for women and drop for men till they met halfway? The rise in woman's car insurance to the same as mens is just the greed of the insurance companies in the UK where as in other countries (allegedly) they have split the difference. That's bad government implementation not bad EU legislation.

All this talk of the EU being the USE at the moment is tosh. For a start we need an elected, by the people, president and that is around 8 to 10 years away. We need people to take voting for their MEP seriously is the next step or possible the first step. Once we have an elected president then we can look towards the USE which yes I believe in and is the way to go. Old people have old beliefs, they remember wars (we have had no war between EU countries since its inception which in it self is the biggest by far benefit and something to be very proud of), they remember the bad times. I am of the post war generation and yes very aware of all that but it is history and we are constantly moving forward and should never look backwards. Ask people currently of the 20 to 30 age group and my experience has been that they, in the main, are in favour of a Federal Europe and that is where we should be and are going to be but without the mistakes of the USA.

It looks like the UK may well get the option to vote for staying or going yet this has one great flaw, we Brits as always think the world, or more to the point Europe, can't do without us. Well for many it will come as a great shock to discover that Europe may like the UK to stay but won't be to bothered if it goes as there are far more important issues to be addressed.

[richard51]

3. The EU is rather like the comprehensive education system.

It pulls up those at the lower end but pulls down those who are able.

NB I don't think there should be private (in the sense of British) education running in tandem with comprehensive education.

[richard51]

4. Unlike the USA the United States of Europe (USE) would not even be able to agree a common language.

[richard51]

5. What is this strength in negotiating by being big all about. Methinks German/French/etc/etc/etc interests will swallow up any gains.

[richard51]

6. UK is a net contributor.

[Pickles]

[quote user="richard51"]5. What is this strength in negotiating by being big all about. Methinks German/French/etc/etc/etc interests will swallow up any gains.

[/quote]

I don't think that our "special relationship" with the US will count for anything in the future. Similarly on our own, the UK won't make much of dent in China.

[Quillan]

[quote user="richard51"]4. Unlike the USA the United States of Europe (USE) would not even be able to agree a common language.


[/quote]

Yes they have, English which is the official second language. This is a much better way than France and the USA have done things and allows people to keep their own identity.

[Quillan]

[quote user="richard51"]6. UK is a net contributor.
[/quote]

Is it? I have seen no real proof either way. It does however make it much easier for European manufacturers to do business and saves them paying import duty.

[Pickles]

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="richard51"]6. UK is a net contributor.

[/quote]Is it? I have seen no real proof either way. It does however make it much easier for European manufacturers to do business and saves them paying import duty.[/quote]

If you look consider the amount that the UK pays directly to the EU administration and simply subtract the amount that the UK receives directly back from the EU administration (via the various economic development funds, R&D, CAP, etc etc) then yes, the UK is a net contributor - and I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, what is pretty much unknown and unknowable is the additional amount of economic activity in the UK that results from being in the EU. For instance, when Nissan, Honda and Toyota set up factories in the UK, a prime factor in their decisions of where to locate was that at that time, their exports to the EU were restricted, and any cars that were assembled within the EU would avoid these restrictions: if the UK had not been in the EU, these factories would have not come to the UK and would have been built elsewhere in Europe. The restrictions on Japanese car imports to the EU are no longer in place.

[woolybanana]

So, by and large we are stuck with the EU, then. Though not with a great deal of enthusiasm. Seems about right.

Ok, now, does anyone think that any real powers can be clawed back or are we stuffed on that one?

[Quillan]

[quote user="woolybanana"]So, by and large we are stuck with the EU, then. Though not with a great deal of enthusiasm. Seems about right. OK, now, does anyone think that any real powers can be clawed back or are we stuffed on that one?[/quote]

Well the way I see it is similar the US. We will have a federal, elected by the people, government. They will collect tax at a federal level like in the US but each state will also raise a tax. In theory (we will have to wait and see) your actual total tax bill will be no more than it is now, it will just be divided up between state and federal. Federal taxing does make sense, you can't control a Federal budget without tax to give you the money. The alternative is not to dissimilar to what we have now in that the state collects the money and pays a percentage per head to the EU. There would also be, just like now, federal law and state law somewhat similar to the US where some states keep the death penalty (as an example) and others don't. Some laws will be set for the benefit of Europe and others will be left to individual states just as it is now. If you think about it more and more on the TV and in the papers they refer to member states as opposed to countries. This is, I think, a way of getting people used to the terminology before federalism actually arrives.

[Pickles]

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="woolybanana"]So, by and large we are stuck with the EU, then. Though not with a great deal of enthusiasm. Seems about right. OK, now, does anyone think that any real powers can be clawed back or are we stuffed on that one?[/quote]

Well the way I see it is similar the US. We will have a federal, elected by the people, government. They will collect tax at a federal level like in the US but each state will also raise a tax. In theory (we will have to wait and see) your actual total tax bill will be no more than it is now, it will just be divided up between state and federal. Federal taxing does make sense, you can't control a Federal budget without tax to give you the money. The alternative is not to dissimilar to what we have now in that the state collects the money and pays a percentage per head to the EU. There would also be, just like now, federal law and state law somewhat similar to the US where some states keep the death penalty (as an example) and others don't. Some laws will be set for the benefit of Europe and others will be left to individual states just as it is now. If you think about it more and more on the TV and in the papers they refer to member states as opposed to countries. This is, I think, a way of getting people used to the terminology before federalism actually arrives.[/quote]

This discussion has highlighted to me what may be a significant part of the UK's problem: we have elected members to the European Parliament but we do not hold them to account for themselves and their actions ... and how they vote. We do not take the European Parliament seriously: eg TV political programmes in the UK concentrate on Westminster, not Brussels/Strasbourg. Brussels/Strasbourg is seen as "faceless" - partly and obviously because we do not see them! Essentially, the faceless "They/Them" of the EU are actually US - and we ought to be a) engaging with them and b) making damn sure that they engage with us!

[Quillan]

[quote user="Pickles"]This discussion has highlighted to me what may be a significant part of the UK's problem: we have elected members to the European Parliament but we do not hold them to account for themselves and their actions ... and how they vote. We do not take the European Parliament seriously: eg TV political programmes in the UK concentrate on Westminster, not Brussels/Strasbourg. Brussels/Strasbourg is seen as "faceless" - partly and obviously because we do not see them! Essentially, the faceless "They/Them" of the EU are actually US - and we ought to be a) engaging with them and b) making damn sure that they engage with us!
[/quote]

Absolutly spot on and thats the biggest problem.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm

OK it's a bit old now and stops at 2009 but have a look at the top nine, longest serving member states, and the UK is at the bottom and top of the list with constantly over 90% of the people voting in Belgium. Mind you France is only marginally better than the UK. These elections should be treated as importantly if not more so that state elections. You reap what you sow as they say.