Brexit

schneckster

BobQ wrote: »

Ted Heath was a backbencher by then. Mrs Thatcher was saying this at the time.....

Yes, Thatcher said that in 1975. But after being in government, she then said this...

"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magnitude. There is, though, still time to choose a different and better course."

BobQ wrote: »

There have always been statutory instruments in the UK to enact laws. Most of these regulations are for protection of consumers, employees, the public. They define standards which enable us to trade in the common market you seem to support. To see conspiracy is paranoid. Things that need debate are debated.

Who decides what's debated? And are they all just for consumer protection? Since 70-85% of our laws now come from the EU, are you sure there isn't more than just consumer issues? A quick search found statutory instruments used for immigration, criminal justice, policing, and education, amongst others, now all competencies ceded to the EU via the Lisbon Treaty. I do not see conspiracy. I see an option for politicians to enact things they know we won't like. Is that paranoia when politicians have done that before?

BobQ wrote: »

Can you quote Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty.

Yes I can but I see where you're going and I take it back - Article 50 does not explicitly demand an FTA ( that was a logical conclusion from one legal analysis), only that a relationship is negotiated with the leaving nation. Legal opinion is divided about the nature of said relationship as the wording is ambiguous - is it just during leaving negotiations, or after the country has left. However, an FTA is pretty much inevitable given the fact the UK is the EU's biggest export market.

BobQ wrote: »

You make it sound like a crusade! Sure we can survive and prosper. But the question is what is best for the UK, a diminishing power on the edge of the largest trading block in the world. Sure we can still trade with the EU, probably with trade tariffs. Much of legislation you deride would still need to be enacted, except that we would have no influence on its formulation.

What a weak argument - a diminishing power with no influence! Sheesh!
1. Norway, Switzerland, Greenland, Iceland, and San Marino all rejected EU membership - the UK, diminishing power it may be, is many times bigger than them all. And they all still have access to the single market.
2. The UK pays £55million a day for access to the single market and has to apply 100% of EU law to not just all products sold to the single market, but also to every aspect of life in the UK. EU law takes primacy over UK law. Our influence in Council, Commission or EU Parliament is approx 7% with vetoes in most areas now removed (see Lisbon). If we left, EU law would only apply to products exported to the EU, not to every aspect of life at home and abroad as they are now.
3. China is not in the EU and only applies EU law, to which it has no say over, to products sold in the EU. EU law does not apply in China. It is the biggest exporter to the EU in the world and they do not pay £55million a day for the privilege. Should they join the EU?
4. The UK has no say over US law but only applies US law to products sold there. The US is the UK's biggest individual export market. Should we be joining the US instead?
5. The EU would not apply trade tariffs if we left, at least not for long. We are the EU's biggest export market with a trade deficit of approx £90billion a year. It is the only market on earth where we have a deficit. Germany's export business, especially automotive, would cry blue murder if tariffs were applied.
6. Due to UK membership, the EU votes on our behalf on the WTO council - we have 1/28th of a vote. Leave the EU and the UK retakes its own seat at the same council with a full vote. It is the same on many other international bodies.
7. As for the largest trading bloc... you mean the only one in the world that is shrinking as a percentage of world GDP while all others are growing? And NAFTA is actually larger in terms of GDP ($20trillion v $15trillion in 2013).
8. I haven't derided any legislation (despite temptation and many examples to choose from). But exactly what legislation would need to be enacted if we left? And if we left, wouldn't Westminster be formulating and enacting the laws giving us total influence rather than precious little as we have currently? Your argument makes me think one thing... How on earth did we survive the last 1000 years before the EU???

BobQ wrote: »

Clearly it is true that you have not had a vote on this in a referendum, but Treaties were signed by elected UK governments that you did have a chance to vote for/against. You have not been given a vote on us belonging to the UN or NATO either.

Sorry but this is a ridiculous argument. How many governments did something after elected that they didn't mention before an election - the Lisbon Treaty hypocrisy for the last Labour government, say? Or vice versa - Lib Dems and tuition fees? In 2005, we voted (or not!) on Labour's manifesto. Here's Channel Four's take on some aspects of it:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/vote_2010/how+did+labour+do+on+its+2005+manifesto+pledges/3609602.html
For balance, I'll try to find something similar for 2010 and the coalition, though tuition fees are a good start.

BobQ wrote: »

But now we have a chance to vote on the EU a decision so let us see what the collective wisdom of the nation says.

Yep, and about time too. But it isn't a question of trade, immigration, jobs, economy, etc., etc. It is a far simpler; do you want this country to be governed by Parliament in Westminster, or do you want it governed by the EU Commission in Brussels?

Cheers,

Schneckster

schneckster

BobQ wrote: »

Unfortunately if you trust the public you have to accept that a small % have views based on facts and evidence and a large % cannot understand the issues or will not bother to understand them.

Well put and, unfortunately, so true. The masses are lazy these days and are happy to have their opinions spoon fed to them without any thought whatsoever. Big Brother and One Direction are seemingly more important than things that will truly affect them like the EU.

When did it get so pathetic?

Schneckster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

schneckster wrote: »

But it isn't a question of trade, immigration, jobs, economy, etc., etc.

It is of course about all those things and more, but if you insist on engaging in sophistry followed by oversimplification, then I'll indulge you....

do you want this country to be governed by Parliament in Westminster, or do you want it governed by the EU Commission in Brussels?

Neither.

I prefer our current arrangement where multiple layers of checks and balances exist, and with a bit of luck governments will find themselves so hopelessly gridlocked by competing interests, they'll not be able to 'achieve' all that much in the way of screwing things up for the rest of us.

But if I had to choose I'd probably choose the EU...

Hope that helps.:cool:

kabayiri

We shouldn't underestimate the importance on the voting public, as to how the European politicians present 'Europe' in the run up to the referendum.

There has been an undercurrent feeling that European countries are quite cool on addressing UK interests.

This could be genuine or just media talk.

I for one am unwilling to commit until I know more about how the rest of Europe sees the future involvement of the UK. I'm hoping this becomes clearer.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

It's like Scotland all over again. The result is clear from the start.

Why would anyone change their mind? It's vanishingly unlikely that we will hear anything in the next year or two that will have an impact on views. Basically the entire political establishment will be campaigning for as will at least 50% of the press (The Sun and the Torygraph will campaign for QUIT!).

The Telegraph isn't slavishly Tory. They are very much of the Eurosceptic wing.

What so you mean that with a week to go the "quit!" campaign will be ahead in the polls and there will be a desperate last minute intervention from Gordon Brown who will promise in a passionate speech that he will personally make sure no more immigrants are allowed in if people vote "stay!" instead.

schneckster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Neither...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.... and with a bit of luck governments will find themselves so hopelessly gridlocked by competing interests, they'll not be able to 'achieve' all that much in the way of screwing things up for the rest of us.

Now this, I cannot argue with! Funny how things seem better during Parliament's recesses, isn't it?

Of course, if governments are going to screw things up, I'd rather it was one I could vote in or out, or at least scare at the ballot box - it does have an effect, e.g. UKIP scaring the Tories into a referendum. We can't do that with the EU. What was it van Rompuy said? "If the public doesn't want it, we do it anyway"! Or Juncker with "There can be no democratic choice against European treaties." Personally, I don't want people with that attitude in charge.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But if I had to choose I'd probably choose the EU...
Hope that helps.:cool:

To a Scot, I guess the EU is always preferable to a Tory government - I'm from Merseyside so I completely understand! :rotfl:

Schneckster

schneckster

Generali wrote: »

IBasically the entire political establishment will be campaigning for as will at least 50% of the press (The Sun and the Torygraph will campaign for QUIT!).

The Telegraph isn't slavishly Tory. They are very much of the Eurosceptic wing.

The Torygraph won't campaign for out. They'll campaign for renegotiation and then say Cameron got a good enough package - we all know he won't, of course. The Sun will do what Murdoch says which will be whatever is in the best corporative interest.

The one that will campaign for out is The Express. Their owner bunged UKIP a few quid and is very anti-EU.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

There has been an undercurrent feeling that European countries are quite cool on addressing UK interests.

This could be genuine or just media talk.

If you were a net beneficiary from being in the EU. Why would you want to?

Ultimately a lot of politics at local level is actually related to self interest. Rather than mankind globally.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

schneckster wrote: »

To a Scot, I guess the EU is always preferable to a Tory government - I'm from Merseyside so I completely understand! :rotfl:

I usually vote Conservative and am delighted to see a Tory majority.

But the reason I support EU membership is the same reason I support Scotland staying in the UK.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

So given the immense economic and social benefits of staying in, and the risks and downsides of leaving, then on any objective measure of risk/return the benefits outweigh the costs and it would be madness to leave.

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I usually vote Conservative and am delighted to see a Tory majority.

But the reason I support EU membership is the same reason I support Scotland staying in the UK.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

So given the immense economic and social benefits of staying in, and the risks and downsides of leaving, then on any objective measure of risk/return the benefits outweigh the costs and it would be madness to leave.

So where would you stand on the UK becoming a US state?