So who wants to remain in the EU?
Discussion
The main issue for me is that not a single UK citizen has been given the chance to vote for or against membership of the EU, and what many in the UK signed up to in joining the common market all those years ago, is definitely NOT what the EU is now.
It was (badly) promoted as `only' being a trading agreement/ bloc in those days, but now we have the monster of a federal Europe, controlling many aspects of our lives.
I am absolutely sure that if the UK population, had had described to them, what the common market was to morph into, most would have voted against joining.
The UK population is in, what is now the EU through, deception, lies, and concealment of the truth or aims of `some' of its early leaders.
Each UK citizen deserves the opportunity to vote on EU membership, albeit even now, few have a clear idea of what it actually is, or how it affects them.
Camoron has begun scaremongering by saying that the camps such as at Calais, will be on UK soil if we leave the EU.
Not sure how he comes to that view. All we need to do is turn illegal / economic migrants straight back around to the continent, saying that if they got into, and crossed other European countries illegally, then it is for those countries that allowed this to happen to deal with. (true refugees however will be welcomed)
It was (badly) promoted as `only' being a trading agreement/ bloc in those days, but now we have the monster of a federal Europe, controlling many aspects of our lives.
I am absolutely sure that if the UK population, had had described to them, what the common market was to morph into, most would have voted against joining.
The UK population is in, what is now the EU through, deception, lies, and concealment of the truth or aims of `some' of its early leaders.
Each UK citizen deserves the opportunity to vote on EU membership, albeit even now, few have a clear idea of what it actually is, or how it affects them.
Camoron has begun scaremongering by saying that the camps such as at Calais, will be on UK soil if we leave the EU.
Not sure how he comes to that view. All we need to do is turn illegal / economic migrants straight back around to the continent, saying that if they got into, and crossed other European countries illegally, then it is for those countries that allowed this to happen to deal with. (true refugees however will be welcomed)
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 8th February 11:18
Pan Pan Pan said:
The main issue for me is that not a single UK citizen has been given the chance to vote for or against membership of the EU, and what many in the UK signed up to in joining the common market all those years ago, is definitely NOT what the EU is now.
It was (badly) promoted as `only' being a trading agreement/ bloc in those days, but now we have the monster of a federal Europe, controlling many aspects of our lives.
I am absolutely sure that if the UK population, had had described to them, what the common market was to morph into, most would have voted against joining.
The UK population is in, what is now the EU through, deception, lies, and concealment of the truth or aims of `some' of its early leaders.
Each UK citizen deserves the opportunity to vote on EU membership, albeit even now, few have a clear idea of what it actually is, or how it affects them.
Camoron has begun scaremongering by saying that the camps such as at Calais, will be on UK soil if we leave the EU.
Not sure how he comes to that view. All we need to do is turn illegal / economic migrants straight back around to the continent, saying that if they got into, and crossed other European countries illegally, then it is for those countries that allowed this to happen to deal with. (true refugees however will be welcomed)
Fair dos, but that's an argument to have a referendum, not an argument to leave (or stay for that matter). It was (badly) promoted as `only' being a trading agreement/ bloc in those days, but now we have the monster of a federal Europe, controlling many aspects of our lives.
I am absolutely sure that if the UK population, had had described to them, what the common market was to morph into, most would have voted against joining.
The UK population is in, what is now the EU through, deception, lies, and concealment of the truth or aims of `some' of its early leaders.
Each UK citizen deserves the opportunity to vote on EU membership, albeit even now, few have a clear idea of what it actually is, or how it affects them.
Camoron has begun scaremongering by saying that the camps such as at Calais, will be on UK soil if we leave the EU.
Not sure how he comes to that view. All we need to do is turn illegal / economic migrants straight back around to the continent, saying that if they got into, and crossed other European countries illegally, then it is for those countries that allowed this to happen to deal with. (true refugees however will be welcomed)
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 8th February 11:18
Zod said:
The problem is that the Norway option is simply not right for us. Norway has a massive budget surplus, thanks to its oil. It is not affected by EU legislation affecting the EEA to anything like the extent that we would be, so its lack of ability to influence the legislation is less of a problem. For this country, with its financial services industry, agriculture and varied industrial exports, being subject to EU Directives and Regulations, but unable to influence them is a terrifying prospect.
I am on one of the City groups working on the new financial services directives and regulations. We met on Friday to discuss the proposed new Prospectus Regulation. I am very vocal about the problems with this legislation and the way it operates to distort and encumber the market. Our biggest problem, however, is dealing with EU officials and Parliamentarians who have no comprehension of financial markets at best and who at worst believe that it is all an Anglo-Saxon plot. One of the most important aspects of our submissions is trying to explain in clear, non-patronising terms, how securities markets work. If we didn't have the platform to do this, the prospect of what the EU might produce next time (that would bind us in the EEA) around is mind-boggling.
Just to pick up on the first paragraph if I may. Norway has a very subtle and effective influence in the shaping of the new regulations right at the very start. True, it's influence is literally limited by the fact it doesn't have a final vote, but all the hard work has been done way back in formal EFTA consultative committees and ministerial level consultations.I am on one of the City groups working on the new financial services directives and regulations. We met on Friday to discuss the proposed new Prospectus Regulation. I am very vocal about the problems with this legislation and the way it operates to distort and encumber the market. Our biggest problem, however, is dealing with EU officials and Parliamentarians who have no comprehension of financial markets at best and who at worst believe that it is all an Anglo-Saxon plot. One of the most important aspects of our submissions is trying to explain in clear, non-patronising terms, how securities markets work. If we didn't have the platform to do this, the prospect of what the EU might produce next time (that would bind us in the EEA) around is mind-boggling.
People make big play of the 3,000 regulations that Norway has adopted, which are mostly technical in truth, yet fail to mention the 18,000 regulations that the UK has been forced to adopt, even though in some cases voting against them.
Furthermore as Hannan points out, these regulations do not tell the Norwegians and Icelanders what to tax, where to fish, whom to employ or what surplus to run. Plus the founding charter of the EEA, the Lisbon Treaty, enshrines the EU's jurisdiction as it stood on 2 May 1992. It provides no mechanism to impose on Norway, etc the extensions of EU power that have happened in subsequent treaties, notably in the fields of employment law, social policy and justice and home affairs. It is up to these countries to decide whether they wish to alter their own law to keep pace with the EU in these areas.
Not going to comment on the second paragraph, as that's specialist, other than to agree that ime the lack of real world knowledge and naivety of officials from wherever can be worrying.
Those in favour of our continued EU membership need to stop thinking idealistically about what the EU could be, or should be and start realising how it actually is.
You are not going to reform something that is quite happy with the corrupt & incompetent way it operates any more than you could change the UN or FIFA under Sepp Blatter.
You are not going to reform something that is quite happy with the corrupt & incompetent way it operates any more than you could change the UN or FIFA under Sepp Blatter.
Zod said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I'm going to make the pollsters heads fall off. Committed federalist who would like to see full European integration with joint competencies on defence, justice & foreign policy and converged regional policies of finance and social affairs.
I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
I'm definitely no federalist, but then I don't live in Clapham. I do believe we are better off in than out, even though the EU needs radical reform. My profile is otherwise similar to yours.I have been a Conservative party member all my life, I went to university, I read the Telegraph and I live in London but was born & raised I. East Anglia
Mario149 said:
Why couldn't each country just elect their own commissioner rather than them being appointed? My understanding of the people here who think the EU is undemocratic is that we can't vote out our commissioner
Because commissioners are supposed to work in their area of competence, like cabinet ministers. So there's a commissioner for Trade, one for Agriculture, one for Foreign Policy etc. If you did that it would make it entirely geographic, and also give an inbuilt asymmetry in that Luxembourg with its 525,000 people would have equal weight with Germany's 80 million. You would have to do it by having an elected president of the European Union.
Fred
I completely disagree that language is a trifling matter. The nuances of language and rhetoric are vast and hugely important to understanding the meaning behind the particular platitudes that politicians churn out. The idea of a meaningful presidential debate between a pool of candidates from France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Sweden is absurd.
It's not the election of each individual commissioner which is the problem but the total lack of any democratic control over the process at all, or any connection between the commission and the people it governs.
Funkycoldribena said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I wholeheartedly agree that the EU requires very significant reform, especially if, as I would hope, we can move to a model where the EU as an institution assumes ultimate sovereignty over the current member states.
Am I reading this correctly? "as I would hope"?ClaphamGT3 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I wholeheartedly agree that the EU requires very significant reform, especially if, as I would hope, we can move to a model where the EU as an institution assumes ultimate sovereignty over the current member states.
Am I reading this correctly? "as I would hope"?ClaphamGT3 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I wholeheartedly agree that the EU requires very significant reform, especially if, as I would hope, we can move to a model where the EU as an institution assumes ultimate sovereignty over the current member states.
Am I reading this correctly? "as I would hope"?Pan Pan Pan said:
The main issue for me is that not a single UK citizen has been given the chance to vote for or against membership of the EU, and what many in the UK signed up to in joining the common market all those years ago, is definitely NOT what the EU is now.
It was (badly) promoted as `only' being a trading agreement/ bloc in those days, but now we have the monster of a federal Europe, controlling many aspects of our lives.
I am absolutely sure that if the UK population, had had described to them, what the common market was to morph into, most would have voted against joining.
The UK population is in, what is now the EU through, deception, lies, and concealment of the truth or aims of `some' of its early leaders.
Each UK citizen deserves the opportunity to vote on EU membership, albeit even now, few have a clear idea of what it actually is, or how it affects them.
Camoron has begun scaremongering by saying that the camps such as at Calais, will be on UK soil if we leave the EU.
Not sure how he comes to that view. All we need to do is turn illegal / economic migrants straight back around to the continent, saying that if they got into, and crossed other European countries illegally, then it is for those countries that allowed this to happen to deal with. (true refugees however will be welcomed)
That's all very well but it demonstrates the dangers of the referendum for Euroscepticism. If it is a "Remain", even a narrow one, then our membership of the EU as it is now will have democratic legitimacy and it will kill the argument for the lives of pretty much anyone reading this. It was (badly) promoted as `only' being a trading agreement/ bloc in those days, but now we have the monster of a federal Europe, controlling many aspects of our lives.
I am absolutely sure that if the UK population, had had described to them, what the common market was to morph into, most would have voted against joining.
The UK population is in, what is now the EU through, deception, lies, and concealment of the truth or aims of `some' of its early leaders.
Each UK citizen deserves the opportunity to vote on EU membership, albeit even now, few have a clear idea of what it actually is, or how it affects them.
Camoron has begun scaremongering by saying that the camps such as at Calais, will be on UK soil if we leave the EU.
Not sure how he comes to that view. All we need to do is turn illegal / economic migrants straight back around to the continent, saying that if they got into, and crossed other European countries illegally, then it is for those countries that allowed this to happen to deal with. (true refugees however will be welcomed)
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Monday 8th February 11:18
For 40 years people have been able to argue "this is wasn't we voted for" but, if the vote goes remain, the other side will be able to argue "this is what people voted for so please shut up".
confused_buyer said:
That's all very well but it demonstrates the dangers of the referendum for Euroscepticism. If it is a "Remain", even a narrow one, then our membership of the EU as it is now will have democratic legitimacy and it will kill the argument for the lives of pretty much anyone reading this.
For 40 years people have been able to argue "this is wasn't we voted for" but, if the vote goes remain, the other side will be able to argue "this is what people voted for so please shut up".
It won't kill the argument for me. We would still be better off out. We would just have to convince more people more thoroughly.For 40 years people have been able to argue "this is wasn't we voted for" but, if the vote goes remain, the other side will be able to argue "this is what people voted for so please shut up".
Funkycoldribena said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I wholeheartedly agree that the EU requires very significant reform, especially if, as I would hope, we can move to a model where the EU as an institution assumes ultimate sovereignty over the current member states.
Am I reading this correctly? "as I would hope"?Beati Dogu said:
Those in favour of our continued EU membership need to stop thinking idealistically about what the EU could be, or should be and start realising how it actually is.
That's not a valid argument: you shouldn't be making decisions solely on what the current state of affairs is for anything (house purchase, car purchase, job, biz startup etc etc), but also what you could make out of it and what the benefits could be. If you don't think the EU can be changed sufficiently to your liking, that's one thing. But simply saying it's crap at this minute and saying that's enough to vote out is blinkered at best. Mario149 said:
That's not a valid argument: you shouldn't be making decisions solely on what the current state of affairs is for anything (house purchase, car purchase, job, biz startup etc etc), but also what you could make out of it and what the benefits could be. If you don't think the EU can be changed sufficiently to your liking, that's one thing. But simply saying it's crap at this minute and saying that's enough to vote out is blinkered at best.
If only we could exercise the same sort of control over EU affairs that we do over the examples you have given eg house/car/job/biz startup!Not really the same thing.
Mario149 said:
Beati Dogu said:
Those in favour of our continued EU membership need to stop thinking idealistically about what the EU could be, or should be and start realising how it actually is.
That's not a valid argument: you shouldn't be making decisions solely on what the current state of affairs is for anything (house purchase, car purchase, job, biz startup etc etc), but also what you could make out of it and what the benefits could be. If you don't think the EU can be changed sufficiently to your liking, that's one thing. But simply saying it's crap at this minute and saying that's enough to vote out is blinkered at best. Some people are saying they are fine with it as it is and where it is ultimately heading, I can understand that, if not agreeing with them.
Some are saying they don't like where it is or where it's heading, never have, never will, and again that's a clear position.
There are others who are saying that it's not as bad as some make out but needs reform, clearly isn't going to reform significantly, plus don't like the way it's heading, so better to be out.
The ones I don't get are those who say it needs significant reform as it's a shambles, but seeing as we're going to get no significant reform say, well Ok we'll still stay in. They may as well be in the first group.
Edited by FiF on Monday 8th February 13:10
Mario149 said:
Beati Dogu said:
Those in favour of our continued EU membership need to stop thinking idealistically about what the EU could be, or should be and start realising how it actually is.
That's not a valid argument: you shouldn't be making decisions solely on what the current state of affairs is for anything (house purchase, car purchase, job, biz startup etc etc), but also what you could make out of it and what the benefits could be. If you don't think the EU can be changed sufficiently to your liking, that's one thing. But simply saying it's crap at this minute and saying that's enough to vote out is blinkered at best. It has been this way for a long time, and will in all probability remain like this.
So on the one hand for the Pro-EU, it is pointless saying that if we stay in, x might get better, and for the anti-EU it is pointless saying x will get worse.
All we can say about how the EU will change is what Cameron is able to get from them in the current round of negotiations.
Which is why the only real question to answer is what would happen if we left. If this cannot be answered, or can be shown to be negative then we stay in, if it can be shown to be positive and there is good evidence for this, then we leave. The onus is on the Leave EU camp here as it is a change to the norm.
AJS- said:
It won't kill the argument for me. We would still be better off out. We would just have to convince more people more thoroughly.
You can still argue, but the chances of getting another vote any time soon are slim to none. Realistically, this is a once in a lifetime chance for the "leave" option.Heard some innie bleating on Question Time that if we left the EU we could end up with much of the downside of membership, without any influence over the EU.
Leaving aside the dubious attractiveness of a 1 in 28 say in the EU, the killer argument is 'We could end up like Norway!'
I am sure that if Norway wanted to join the EU they could, so one would assume that their people value their independence more than a 1 in 28 say and good for them. Will 'innies' please stop saying 'we could end up like Norway'. I thank you.
Leaving aside the dubious attractiveness of a 1 in 28 say in the EU, the killer argument is 'We could end up like Norway!'
I am sure that if Norway wanted to join the EU they could, so one would assume that their people value their independence more than a 1 in 28 say and good for them. Will 'innies' please stop saying 'we could end up like Norway'. I thank you.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff