Discussion
Moominho said:
It's just for me, at the moment I feel that I can't see the benefit of leaving the EU, not from an economic standpoint anyway.
https://youtu.be/leKEUT1TiLUPlease try and watch this in its entirety, I am open to debate on what you feel might be wrong or misleading.
Bluebarge said:
None of those trade agreements are as good as the ones we have with the EU, or which can be negotiated on our behalf by the EU. A market of 500m consumers has more clout than one of 67m. Sorry, but them's the facts.
But are they the facts? The UK is a major importer (unlike Germany), that makes it easier to get a trade deal with (say) China than if the opposite were true. Secondly due to all the differing national interests in the EU (I am looking at you France) it makes doing a trade deal nightmareish in trying to meet all the criteria. For an example of this look at TTIP its taken years to try and agree anything and still isnt finalised. The UK by itself could simply sign up to either a sectorial set of trade deals with the US or offer to sign up to NAFTA, no questions asked. And we could do it in double quick time. So I would like to see some evidence for your assertion on 'them facts'. However, the real biggie for us with be an agreement with India. If we could negotiate with them on our own that one would be reasonably straightforward - the intertwining of our heavy industry means that the big conglomerates, notably Tata, would be heavily in favour. Combine that with the language advantage, the legal similarities, and the cultural links, and we would be leagues ahead of anyone else. We'd have a captive market for our luxury tat, while India would be able to replace China in our affections to satisfy our urge to buy cheap tat.
FTAs with the rest of the Commonwealth (especially Canada, New Zealand and Australia) would follow in reasonably short order, and before long you've got free trade with a bigger market than we do now.
FTAs with the rest of the Commonwealth (especially Canada, New Zealand and Australia) would follow in reasonably short order, and before long you've got free trade with a bigger market than we do now.
Bluebarge said:
Agree with you on this. I'm basing mine on hard pragmatism and what I believe will be best for the country, its future prosperity and the future of my kids. That all points resoundingly to a vote to stay.
Some of the Brexit camp seem to base their argument on misty-eyed nostalgia for a past independence that never existed, and a misunderstanding of how the EU actually works...
Or perhaps their argument is based on a very clear understanding of how the EU works, as opposed to a misty-eyed belief in non-existent European democracy. Some of the Brexit camp seem to base their argument on misty-eyed nostalgia for a past independence that never existed, and a misunderstanding of how the EU actually works...
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN4.php
The European Parliament (EP) is the only directly elected EU institution and, as such, is seen as providing democratic legitimacy for the EU. However, it does not have the powers of a normal national parliament in that it cannot propose new legislation: it can only accept, reject, or put forward amendments to laws proposed by the Commission. This has contributed to an image problem for the EP, with many European voters unsure of its role and, consequently, exceptionally low turnouts in EU elections. The Parliament has also been dogged by organisational problems arising from its split locations and the number of different political groups within it.
Originally created as an appointed body under the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European Parliament has gained greater prominence since it became a directly elected body in 1979. During the early 1980s, the Parliament attempted to gain greater power. Under the Single European Act (1986) it was given the power to veto the entry of a new member state, and under the Maastricht Treaty (1992) it gained the power of co-decision with the Council of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty (2007) extended the number of policy areas covered by co-decision, so that the Parliament must also vote on all decisions made using Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council. Yet, despite this expansion of authority, the Parliament has still had to compete with the more powerful Commission. This tension between the elected and appointed branches of the EU came to a head in 1999 when the Parliament used its powers to force the resignation of the entire Commission led by Jacques Santer.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN1.php
The Commission is the driving force of the EU and has many different responsibilities. It is the only institution that has the power to propose EU laws and is also responsible for enforcing them. It operates at a supranational level and manages much of the day-to-day running of the EU. It has the financial powers to draft the EU budget and distribute EU money to member states. It also has a role representing all the members collectively in the negotiation of treaties and the enlargement of the EU. It sits in on all decisions made about common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs policy and when members don't implement EU law, it can take legal action against them. It has often been a focus for public attention because of its far reaching powers and the fact that it is not directly accountable to the electorate, leading to claims of a democratic deficit.
otolith said:
If we vote to stay in, we should do it properly, support the dissolution of nation states into a federal Europe, get on board with the idea that most important decisions about how we all live are decided collectively in Strasbourg/Brussels by the representatives of all 500 million people and that what we in the UK want is less important than what all of us in the EU want collectively. None of this picking and choosing and trying to block this or delay that or "we think we're a special case" or "we're not happy about the EU redistributing our wealth" or "we're not having however many migrants we're told" or "we're going to single handedly reform the EU". It can't be reformed, nobody else cares, it is what it is, take it or leave it. Have a referendum, choose to be positive and enthusiastic participants in the European project, or choose to get the f
k out of it. We were sold something other than what it is and what it was always going to be. Now we know what it is, let's make an informed decision and stand by it.
I quite agree that we need to make a positive decision one way or the other and then commit to it wholeheartedly. If one option is the obvious federal Europe, with key decisions made in Strasbourg/Brussels then my decision has been made - I'm out.k out of it. We were sold something other than what it is and what it was always going to be. Now we know what it is, let's make an informed decision and stand by it.Robertj21a said:
I quite agree that we need to make a positive decision one way or the other and then commit to it wholeheartedly. If one option is the obvious federal Europe, with key decisions made in Strasbourg/Brussels then my decision has been made - I'm out.
Europe needs to make a decison one way or another. All of the things that have gone wrong - Greece, Migrants, even the possible Brexit - are down to the EU being a trade body that has decided to run a country.The economic argument for European customs union is fairly sound - a large area of developed economies with totally unhindered free trade and freedom of movement should create greater specialisation, economies of scale and more efficient allocation of resources. If your plumbing business in Kent dries up you can hop on the ferry and do business in France, Belgium or wherever else you can get it. If you find some nifty new taps on sale while you're over there you can load up your van and sell them in England, just as if you'd gone to work in Sussex.
The thing is, this is fundamentally very simple. Brits, German, Italians and Frenchmen have the same basic requirements of seatbelts, electrical goods and just about everything else, so there's no reason not to simply recognise each others standards and crack on with it, or agree a common standard as we increasingly do through the WTO and various global bodies anyway. Because funnily enough the requirements of Japanese, Australians and Americans isn't much different either.
There are practical difficulties like the accession of Poland and other countries with a significant wage disparity flooding higher wage markets with cheap labour but these fairly short lived and over stated. There are definitely cultural and security issues which make me think extending the same policy to 75m Turks is not such a great idea.
However, none of this requires a parliament, a flag, an anthem, a common foreign and security policy, a constitution, a common asylum policy or a military arm. All of these things are blatant symptoms of what the European Union has always been - a political project designed to create a country called Europe.
I quite simply reject this out of hand because I don't beleive such an entity can ever be democratic. For that you would need a demos capable of holding a public discourse with the greater interest in mind, and I don't believe Europe with its mixture of languages, histories, cultures and circumstances has anything close to this. Nor do I believe it can be imposed from above by a bunch of directives handed down from a remote elite, even if they were the most competent and benevolent people on the planet. Which they're not.
The whole scheme is based on a set of circumstances which no longer apply, and an idea that is pretty well discredited. This isn't post WW2, and large transnational political constructs attempting to force unity on diverse member states almost always cause more division and strife than they cause harmony and prosperity.
Not only should Britain leave, but I hope the whole rotten edifice comes tumbling down so that a Europe of democratic nation states peacefully coexisting and freely trading can develop in its place without the need for a European Union.
The thing is, this is fundamentally very simple. Brits, German, Italians and Frenchmen have the same basic requirements of seatbelts, electrical goods and just about everything else, so there's no reason not to simply recognise each others standards and crack on with it, or agree a common standard as we increasingly do through the WTO and various global bodies anyway. Because funnily enough the requirements of Japanese, Australians and Americans isn't much different either.
There are practical difficulties like the accession of Poland and other countries with a significant wage disparity flooding higher wage markets with cheap labour but these fairly short lived and over stated. There are definitely cultural and security issues which make me think extending the same policy to 75m Turks is not such a great idea.
However, none of this requires a parliament, a flag, an anthem, a common foreign and security policy, a constitution, a common asylum policy or a military arm. All of these things are blatant symptoms of what the European Union has always been - a political project designed to create a country called Europe.
I quite simply reject this out of hand because I don't beleive such an entity can ever be democratic. For that you would need a demos capable of holding a public discourse with the greater interest in mind, and I don't believe Europe with its mixture of languages, histories, cultures and circumstances has anything close to this. Nor do I believe it can be imposed from above by a bunch of directives handed down from a remote elite, even if they were the most competent and benevolent people on the planet. Which they're not.
The whole scheme is based on a set of circumstances which no longer apply, and an idea that is pretty well discredited. This isn't post WW2, and large transnational political constructs attempting to force unity on diverse member states almost always cause more division and strife than they cause harmony and prosperity.
Not only should Britain leave, but I hope the whole rotten edifice comes tumbling down so that a Europe of democratic nation states peacefully coexisting and freely trading can develop in its place without the need for a European Union.
s2art said:
But are they the facts? The UK is a major importer (unlike Germany), that makes it easier to get a trade deal with (say) China than if the opposite were true. Secondly due to all the differing national interests in the EU (I am looking at you France) it makes doing a trade deal nightmareish in trying to meet all the criteria. For an example of this look at TTIP its taken years to try and agree anything and still isnt finalised. The UK by itself could simply sign up to either a sectorial set of trade deals with the US or offer to sign up to NAFTA, no questions asked. And we could do it in double quick time. So I would like to see some evidence for your assertion on 'them facts'.
Pure fantasy. Talk to anyone who had actually been involved in a trade negotiation if the UK's position would be strengthened by leaving the EU. They will laugh in your face and possibly then burst into tears. Here's an editorial from The Economist (a newspaper that is a champion of the free market, personal liberty, democracy, etc. ... an old school "liberal" stance that probably is best represented in UK politics at the moment by the saner part of the Conservative Party).
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21674698-the...
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21674698-the...
ATG said:
Pure fantasy. Talk to anyone who had actually been involved in a trade negotiation if the UK's position would be strengthened by leaving the EU. They will laugh in your face and possibly then burst into tears.
That's tosh.We are a consumer nation
Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 1st December 08:11
ATG said:
Pure fantasy. Talk to anyone who had actually been involved in a trade negotiation if the UK's position would be strengthened by leaving the EU. They will laugh in your face and possibly then burst into tears.
That's possibly true, logically it should be. However, the EU is no longer the trading area it should have remained. The nation was asked in 1975 if they wanted to remain in a trading area...40 years later look what has happened...the people of 1975 didn't vote for this.
ATG said:
Here's an editorial from The Economist (a newspaper that is a champion of the free market, personal liberty, democracy, etc. ... an old school "liberal" stance that probably is best represented in UK politics at the moment by the saner part of the Conservative Party).
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21674698-the...
I got as far into that article as "Britain is a middling net contributor " and "Thanks to Britain's political clout, the EU now has less wasteful agricultural and fisheries policies.."http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21674698-the...
Utter fantasy, spreading more of the FUD argument, whilst playing the line admitting that it needs reform but not saying what reforms nor defining even one that is an absolute demand.
Economist 1/10 for getting your name right at the top of the page. Detention.
Brexit 100%. Even if it means we are worse off. In fact, blow up the tunnel and drag us a few hundred miles out into the Atlantic while we are at it. The Brits (thankfully) are not the only Euronationals who have lost faith in this failed experiment. The EU's days are numbered.
Point to note - I am writing this from Italy, in a job which pays me EUR. I live in the UK. I have already had an effective 15% pay cut in the last year or so due to the devaluing EUR:GBP so personally a collapsing EUR would see me properly screwed.
Point to note - I am writing this from Italy, in a job which pays me EUR. I live in the UK. I have already had an effective 15% pay cut in the last year or so due to the devaluing EUR:GBP so personally a collapsing EUR would see me properly screwed.
otolith said:
I think as a nation we have to stop sitting on the fence. If we vote to stay in, we should do it properly, support the dissolution of nation states into a federal Europe, get on board with the idea that most important decisions about how we all live are decided collectively in Strasbourg/Brussels by the representatives of all 500 million people and that what we in the UK want is less important than what all of us in the EU want collectively.
While I can see where you're coming from regarding sitting on the fence, I'm afraid I could never accept being ruled from Brussels. The proper way to leave is to vote for a party at a GE who pledges to take us out of the EU, not this referendum nonsense. If we vote to stay in the EU I will continue to vote for a party who wants to take us out, or nobody.otolith
I'm not convinced we are sitting on the fence. We are in a political union and many deccisions are taken at the EU level.
This idea of British exceptionalism is rather superficial IMO. We are not part of Schengen or the Euro and we have a couple of opt outs. Most countries have some opt outs from various things, and most electorates seem to be fairly regularly told that they're the backwards spoil sports holding up Europe's progress to the brave new world of continental unity and the peace and prosperity this brings.
It's all bks, designed to pacify the public just enough to grudgingly accept the imposition of this project by a political class who are now so committed to it that they can't climb down even if they want to.
I'm not convinced we are sitting on the fence. We are in a political union and many deccisions are taken at the EU level.
This idea of British exceptionalism is rather superficial IMO. We are not part of Schengen or the Euro and we have a couple of opt outs. Most countries have some opt outs from various things, and most electorates seem to be fairly regularly told that they're the backwards spoil sports holding up Europe's progress to the brave new world of continental unity and the peace and prosperity this brings.
It's all b
ks, designed to pacify the public just enough to grudgingly accept the imposition of this project by a political class who are now so committed to it that they can't climb down even if they want to.gareth_r said:
r perhaps their argument is based on a very clear understanding of how the EU works, as opposed to a misty-eyed belief in non-existent European democracy.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN4.php
The European Parliament (EP) is the only directly elected EU institution and, as such, is seen as providing democratic legitimacy for the EU. However, it does not have the powers of a normal national parliament in that it cannot propose new legislation: it can only accept, reject, or put forward amendments to laws proposed by the Commission. This has contributed to an image problem for the EP, with many European voters unsure of its role and, consequently, exceptionally low turnouts in EU elections. The Parliament has also been dogged by organisational problems arising from its split locations and the number of different political groups within it.
Originally created as an appointed body under the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European Parliament has gained greater prominence since it became a directly elected body in 1979. During the early 1980s, the Parliament attempted to gain greater power. Under the Single European Act (1986) it was given the power to veto the entry of a new member state, and under the Maastricht Treaty (1992) it gained the power of co-decision with the Council of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty (2007) extended the number of policy areas covered by co-decision, so that the Parliament must also vote on all decisions made using Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council. Yet, despite this expansion of authority, the Parliament has still had to compete with the more powerful Commission. This tension between the elected and appointed branches of the EU came to a head in 1999 when the Parliament used its powers to force the resignation of the entire Commission led by Jacques Santer.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN1.php
The Commission is the driving force of the EU and has many different responsibilities. It is the only institution that has the power to propose EU laws and is also responsible for enforcing them. It operates at a supranational level and manages much of the day-to-day running of the EU. It has the financial powers to draft the EU budget and distribute EU money to member states. It also has a role representing all the members collectively in the negotiation of treaties and the enlargement of the EU. It sits in on all decisions made about common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs policy and when members don't implement EU law, it can take legal action against them. It has often been a focus for public attention because of its far reaching powers and the fact that it is not directly accountable to the electorate, leading to claims of a democratic deficit.
I understand exactly how it works, but you are being disingenuous at best if you are claiming that a lack of democracy is what justifies Brexit. The European Parliament lacks real teeth because national parliaments (with the UK at the forefront) don't want to give it more teeth. If you want more direct democracy in the EU at central EU level then you can certainly have it, but only at the expense of further integration and less power for Westminster. Which I suspect is what you don't want. So why complain about a situation which you actually want? Baffling.http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN4.php
The European Parliament (EP) is the only directly elected EU institution and, as such, is seen as providing democratic legitimacy for the EU. However, it does not have the powers of a normal national parliament in that it cannot propose new legislation: it can only accept, reject, or put forward amendments to laws proposed by the Commission. This has contributed to an image problem for the EP, with many European voters unsure of its role and, consequently, exceptionally low turnouts in EU elections. The Parliament has also been dogged by organisational problems arising from its split locations and the number of different political groups within it.
Originally created as an appointed body under the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European Parliament has gained greater prominence since it became a directly elected body in 1979. During the early 1980s, the Parliament attempted to gain greater power. Under the Single European Act (1986) it was given the power to veto the entry of a new member state, and under the Maastricht Treaty (1992) it gained the power of co-decision with the Council of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty (2007) extended the number of policy areas covered by co-decision, so that the Parliament must also vote on all decisions made using Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council. Yet, despite this expansion of authority, the Parliament has still had to compete with the more powerful Commission. This tension between the elected and appointed branches of the EU came to a head in 1999 when the Parliament used its powers to force the resignation of the entire Commission led by Jacques Santer.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/eufacts/FSINST/IN1.php
The Commission is the driving force of the EU and has many different responsibilities. It is the only institution that has the power to propose EU laws and is also responsible for enforcing them. It operates at a supranational level and manages much of the day-to-day running of the EU. It has the financial powers to draft the EU budget and distribute EU money to member states. It also has a role representing all the members collectively in the negotiation of treaties and the enlargement of the EU. It sits in on all decisions made about common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs policy and when members don't implement EU law, it can take legal action against them. It has often been a focus for public attention because of its far reaching powers and the fact that it is not directly accountable to the electorate, leading to claims of a democratic deficit.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff