'Should we withdraw from Europe?' poll discussion

teddyco

There are many who voted for Less Integration. E.g. Keep open trade but that’s it.

That sounds really good if indeed it remained that way, but remember that the EU originally started as the European Economic Community in 1958 and it was only for 'economic trade', but after 40 years there is already a currency, a national flag, a government that issues laws and a European Court that enforces those laws. A President and a Constitution are right around the corner....

Do you REALLY believe that the EU will only allow us to engage in 'trade' and that's all?

rickbonar

There was a referendum in 1975 and the question was a simple yes or no to:

Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

There was a government campaign to persuade people to vote yes and it was sold with an assurance that it solely a common market to trade and "we can always leave at any time if it doesn't work out"

and a yes vote won despite lucid arguments against the absurd common agricultural policy; and Tony Benn correctly illustrating job losses as a consequence of joining.

Now what the public voted for was a "common market" NOT a federal state in which we are answerable to unelected (by us) bureaucrats and large corporations who allegedly fund many of these bureaucrats in lavish lifestyles which make some of claims the British expense scandal look like a young childs pocket money.

ScarletBea

C - we are absolutely fine, and those who want out have no idea of how trade and exports will suffer from it, as well as your holidays and your property abroad...

teddyco

ScarletBea,

There was a report done in 2004 entitled 'A Cost Too Far?'. This was an analysis of the net economic costs and benefits for the UK of EU membership.
Four other reports were also conducted, all of which concluded that membership of the EU is costing the UK far more than is received. The reports go into great detail and make some amazing points.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs37.pdf

This information was taken from that report done in 2004.

"The current recurring annual direct net cost to the UK of EU
membership is estimated to range between approximately
three and five per cent of GDP, with a ‘most likely’ figure of
four per cent of GDP, equivalent to £40 billion per year

To illustrate the magnitude of that amount, the UK defence
budget is £27 billion a year, while excise duties (on drink,
fuel and tobacco) raise £40 billion a year

Within the ‘most likely’ £40 billion, £20 billion is the direct
net cost of EU regulation to the UK economy—annually

A further £15 billion is the direct net cost to the UK economy
of the Common Agricultural Policy

Another £5 billion is the annual cash subsidy that the UK
pays to ‘Brussels’ through the EU budget"

Also,

Did you know that Mexico already trades with the EU via the Mexico Free Trade Agreement with few if any of the legislative and other costs of membership of the single market?

teddyco

The report also indicates:

"The British government admits that ‘about half of major UK laws start off in Europe’. In addition, since 1973, it has enacted directly in the UK a minimum (it does not know the precise number) of 101,811 EU regulations. Clearly, the impact of EU legislation in the UK is on its way to fulfilling the prediction made over a decade ago by Jacques Delors, that 80 per cent of member states’ laws would soon be made in Brussels."

And for those who are struggling to pay higher food prices....listen to this taken from the report.

"HM Treasury reports that, for the whole of EU-15, the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) costs ‘EU taxpayers and consumers around $100 billion a year
through subsidies and higher food prices’, equivalent to ‘an implicit tax on food of around 26 per cent’.

urban469

Europe exists, deal with it. We wouldn't be anything without the Union. The Empire doesn't exist guys!!

B. Join the Euro, dump the pathetic Pound, and unify foreign policy to create a truly bi-polar world.

scouseneil

D for me, hearing UKIP MEP had claimed 2 MILLION ! in expenses just makes me think more and more what a drain it is on the UK.

wenyi

The whole debate, especially in the UK, is a never-ending merry-go-round where the nation states block the greater democratisation of the EU and then blame it for being undemocratic!

It was the UK, chiefly, that wanted a "broader, shallower" Europe and which pushed for the rapid expansion Eastwards. That is what has brought most of the problems with EU membership. The EU would have been better off as a more West European entity.

I voted B - more integration!

cport80

ScarletBea wrote: »

C - we are absolutely fine, and those who want out have no idea of how trade and exports will suffer from it, as well as your holidays and your property abroad...

I have no property abroad and if I went away the whole experience would likely be marred by french transport workers going on strike or fishermen being allowed to blockade ports. Unfortunate as flying over France would provide my only export to Europe .I vote E because so much euro-legislation doesn't seem to agree with us here and I can't support euro-mp's who vote not to publicise their expenses.

person19320-K

Those who voted A and B please have a look at "Endgame" film on google video. As someone rightly pointed out in this forum, I believe that the true intentions of the people behind the so called "European Economic Union" project is just a smoke screen for the creation of the European Super State (at it's last stages of formation), followed by the American Union ( in progress), and the Asian Union, so the 3 interlocking Super States can form the core of the global government controlled by the appointed few currently represented in the Builderberg Group.