So who wants to remain in the EU?

[loafer123]

FredClogs said:

That's what I hope for, I have no real fear of a federal Europe

Well if that doesn't make ClaphamGT3 think again, I don't know what will!

[Zod]

Ayahuasca said:

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.

i posted above about why the comparison with Norway is severely flawed.

[anonymous-user]

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"?

Yes, some people are naive beyond belief.

[Mr_B]

ClaphamGT3 said:

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 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.

But whatever happens, I'll guess you have both already decided to vote in regardless. It's exactly that kinda vote the EU and Cameron knows will keep us in. Then they can proceed to ignore the significant reform you speak of.

[TEKNOPUG]

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.

Economic Growth less than 2% = check

10% unemployment rate = check

10 year low € to $ = check

Highest migration since WW2 = check

Farcical entry of PIIGS into Eurozone has inevitably failed, no workable solution, canned kicked down road etc = check

Destabilising Eastern Europe & Baltic States, leading to Russian invasion of Ukraine and 10k+ deaths and counting = check

Green tariffs and increased energy costs = check

Decimation of EU steel production = check


It's not really on an upward trend, is it?

[anonymous-user]

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.

If the house or car you were thinking of buying was delapidated beyond all repair despite years of efforts by all sorts of people to get it into good order, you wouldn't buy it methinks?

The EU debacle has been an absolute, no hope, corrupt mess for decades. Today's (and tomorrow's, in all likelihood) politicians see it as a rich gravy train just as it is and have no interest in changing it.

What it is now is just a shade of how bad it will become if left unchecked.

[Zod]

AJS- said:

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.

You are as bad as Alex Salmond!

[anonymous-user]

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

If one was to design 'Europe' from a clean sheet I think I'd agree but getting there from where you are now is, IMO, economically impossible. The size of the federal transfers needed to hold it together is just vast. Even in the US, which has a few hundred years head start on you, you see fiscal transfers in the order of 10% of a states GDP from rich states to poor. 10% of GDP! A year! Never, ever going to work. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/...

[FiF]

Zod said:

Ayahuasca said:

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.

i posted above about why the comparison with Norway is severely flawed.

And carefully fails to mention that shortly after I posted an explanation why your assertion that Norway couldn't influence legislation was also flawed. Too many people in transmit only mode, nothing new there then.

[Mario149]

BL Fanboy said:

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.

I refer you back to my post:

Mario149 said:

If you don't think the EU can be changed sufficiently to your liking, that's one thing.

If someone doesn't think we will be able to exercise enough control to change things to their liking, that's a valid reason for them to vote leave. But simply saying "it's crap right now, let's get out" is not.

[otolith]

FredClogs said:

It's my belief that people (language aside which really is a trifling matter) are the same across the globe in their aspirations and ideals. That's not to say we're all the same but the same ideals are represented in fairly equal measure across the population as a whole. I see no reason why a wider federal or a properly considered confederal democracy couldn't work on a global level, other than the complexities of power brokering with those who have vested controlling interests.

The suggestion that the EU isn't democratic because the Commissionaires aren't elected by the electorate is daft, you might as well say the UK isn't democratic because the cabinet members,or civil service heads aren't elected or the judiciary aren't elected or the house of lords isn't elected. All democracies have idiosyncratic imperfections and anachronisms, the EU parliament has far fewer than most.

It was interesting to wander around the parliament building speaking to MEPs and their aides. They really aren't very happy about the democratic situation, and not just the sceptics on the right - the lefties and greens were massively pissed off about TTIP. And it would appear that because the parliament can only accept or reject legislation, the practice of forcing the assembly to swallow something unpalatable because otherwise they would have to reject the entirety of something they wanted takes place. We were there talking to them about some fairly esoteric bit of financial regulation, but still we got "yes, that bit is stupid, we don't agree with it, but we couldn't afford to reject the whole bill". Don't underestimate the ability of civil servants to abuse and undermine democratic processes.

[Mario149]

FiF said:

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.

I'm personally not aware of anyone saying that, but I don't keep track exactly what people on here and on the news say. That said, I think it can be a valid position if you say

"It needs significant reform as it's a shambles, but even though seeing as we're going to get no significant reform, I'll vote to stay in as I think leaving might be even more of a shambles"

[handpaper]

FredClogs said:

That's what I hope for, I have no real fear of a federal Europe, other cultural factors will bring about a complete cultural convergence pretty soon anyhow - the days when the Germans could get away with liking David Hasslehoff un-ironicaly are long gone.

For a stable political entity, cultural convergence should precede political convergence. See the USA, GB, Germany for successful examples.
Examples of what happens when you do it the other way around include Yugoslavia, the USSR and the EU.

[Mario149]

Efbe said:

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.

Mario, though I agree with your sentiment, when making a decision like this, you cannot base your decision on what idealistically might happen with the EU.

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.

Agree with that. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that we should put our faith in a pipe dream, I'm just saying that it's important to keep an open mind of what the EU could be.

On that note, I think that by the time we've got though this migrant crisis and all the rest of the crap that's been happening the last few years, we might see quite a different EU from what it is now. Countries are already acting unilaterally on borders etc. If there is a general feeling among member states that more flexibility and freedom are needed, this might result in some positive change. I daresay that if our referendum is a close run thing and we only just get a vote to stay, it might cause enough waves to initiate some change in the EU - it might wake up some people in the EU to the fact that they dodged a bullet, but only just. If it was a close run thing, it would only take a future Eurosceptic prime minister and another crisis to result in another referendum where we do end up leaving.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

Ayahuasca said:

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.

i posted above about why the comparison with Norway is severely flawed.

And carefully fails to mention that shortly after I posted an explanation why your assertion that Norway couldn't influence legislation was also flawed. Too many people in transmit only mode, nothing new there then.

I never got round to addressing that.

FiF said:

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.

Most of the problem legislation is EEA, not EFTA (the EEA being a subset of EFTA). Yes, there is a consulation process, but it is not given anything like the same time or attention as the process withing the EU and EEA-only Member States don't get a vote or the ability to lobby at the Council of Ministers.

[Mario149]

TEKNOPUG said:

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.

Economic Growth less than 2% = check

10% unemployment rate = check

10 year low € to $ = check

Highest migration since WW2 = check

Farcical entry of PIIGS into Eurozone has inevitably failed, no workable solution, canned kicked down road etc = check

Destabilising Eastern Europe & Baltic States, leading to Russian invasion of Ukraine and 10k+ deaths and counting = check

Green tariffs and increased energy costs = check

Decimation of EU steel production = check


It's not really on an upward trend, is it?

When you can forecast the future 100%, so let me know

[Mario149]

REALIST123 said:

If the house or car you were thinking of buying was delapidated beyond all repair despite years of efforts by all sorts of people to get it into good order, you wouldn't buy it methinks?

That's your eurosceptic view. Someone else might say that fundamentally the design of the car is fine, it just needs rebuilding in places and a few aftermarket parts to make it work as intended.

It's sweeping statements like yours that are misleading. If the EU was that broken, we'd all be in the st already economically, we'd have left years ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[TEKNOPUG]

Mario149 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

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.

Economic Growth less than 2% = check

10% unemployment rate = check

10 year low € to $ = check

Highest migration since WW2 = check

Farcical entry of PIIGS into Eurozone has inevitably failed, no workable solution, canned kicked down road etc = check

Destabilising Eastern Europe & Baltic States, leading to Russian invasion of Ukraine and 10k+ deaths and counting = check

Green tariffs and increased energy costs = check

Decimation of EU steel production = check


It's not really on an upward trend, is it?

When you can forecast the future 100%, so let me know

When attempting to make a forecast, it's generally accepted that you look at the historical evidence, what has gone before, similar situations and how they played out. The clues to the future are all written in history....or history repeats itself if you prefer. Then study current facts and evidence, comparing to the facts of the past that you have already acknowledged and try to forecast a trend, based upon all available evidence.

Please do share with us your methodology. I'd rather back an educated guess over wishful thinking.

[plasticpig]

Mario149 said:

I'm personally not aware of anyone saying that, but I don't keep track exactly what people on here and on the news say. That said, I think it can be a valid position if you say

"It needs significant reform as it's a shambles, but even though seeing as we're going to get no significant reform, I'll vote to stay in as I think leaving might be even more of a shambles"

This is pretty much my view. I said in an earlier thread that I would make up my mind when I had seen what the government planned to do if the vote was out. It now seems the government are not going to publish such a plan and Osborne says there is no plan for EU exit . I will be voting to stay in as the government have no clear exit strategy. I am not going to vote out when there is no way to assess what the government will do.

[TEKNOPUG]

plasticpig said:

Mario149 said:

I'm personally not aware of anyone saying that, but I don't keep track exactly what people on here and on the news say. That said, I think it can be a valid position if you say

"It needs significant reform as it's a shambles, but even though seeing as we're going to get no significant reform, I'll vote to stay in as I think leaving might be even more of a shambles"

This is pretty much my view. I said in an earlier thread that I would make up my mind when I had seen what the government planned to do if the vote was out. It now seems the government are not going to publish such a plan and Osborne says there is no plan for EU exit . I will be voting to stay in as the government have no clear exit strategy. I am not going to vote out when there is no way to assess what the government will do.

So if the Gov provided details of what they would do come BREXIT, but said there was no plan if we remained, you'd vote to leave?