and the biggest threat to the UK economy in 2016 is...

BananaRepublic

We can trade without giving away sovereignty. The TTIP sows what the EU is really about ie control of nations by corporations. Want growth hormone free meat? Nope. Impose laws to ensure food safety? Nope, corporations will take you to court.

At present the EU is awful for some countries. Some joined for protection from Russia and the bribes.

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

So you do think that they might be that daft then.

Well....'daft' is dependent on your view of course but I believe if there was another referendum it is looking more and more likely that Scotland would vote for independence.....especially if England is going more and more anti EU. Scotland is virtually a one party state now! The conundrum of course is that the most nationalistic types in England, are the biggest believers in the Union....and it's their anti EU beliefs that are the very thing that is pushing Scotland more and more towards independence!

Sapphire

Unless there are some major changes to the EU before the vote (which I doubt), I'll be voting to leave because I feel the EU is a failure and dysfunctional, and looks likely to get worse. Among other things:

1. I do not want Britain to be a part of a United States of Germany, dictated to by other nations, most of which contribute far less financially to the EU than Britain does.

2. Merkel and Junker attempt to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations, which have their own traditions and cultures, and do not want to be merged into one Germanic whole. Until the illegal migrant crisis (which Frau Merkel and co. have failed miserably to deal with, and even encouraged, and which looks set to end in disaster for Europe), I thought being part of the EU meant cooperating on trade matters, not on national sovereignty. I worry very much about the security of Europe, given the huge influx of people who are largely inimical to Europe and its culture and traditions, and who are unlikely to change but will want to change us and ultimately bring about the sort of situation there is currently in the ME the more their populations grow.

3. Persuading the majority of countries in the EU to use the same currency was idiotic, given how different each of the economies is. Any fool could have seen that this would not work – and it is likely to have even more negative repercussions on all EU countries in future than it has already.

4. Britain would save a great deal of money – all those dinners for the bureaucrats, not to mention the huge roads in Poland (which I was astonished to see on my last visit) and other such 'grants' to the 'poor' countries of the EU come largely courtesy of Britain and Germany.

5. I find it abominable that France, a co-member with Britain in the EU, has not resolved the issue of the migrant camp in Calais, and of other undesirables who are trying to break into Britain. These are violent illegal migrants armed with machetes and knives, are intimidating the lorry drivers to a great degree, and affecting trade by spoiling many trade goods. Why has France not returned them from whence they came? Why were they allowed to land on Europe's shores and travel across the continent in the first place? Why is there no mechanism for returning such people immediately to their places of origin? Why is there not stronger action against those who are smuggled across to Britain? They should be removed from our country immediately, not allowed to hang about indefinitely, to the detriment of Britain. Why are we paying France to keep these illegal immigrants out of our country, when they are plainly the responsibility of France and other countries who let them into France?

5. If the Scots hate the English, Welsh and Irish so much, fine, let them leave the United Kingdom, and adopt the Euro and other EU practices. I used to like the Scots, but am thoroughly sick of them and their whining and demands for special privileges.

We can forge our own trade agreements more on our own terms – and not just with countries in the EU – without being humiliated by countries of the EU 'bloc'. It might take some time and effort, but it can be done. Britain should not appear spineless in the face of attempts at bullying and aggressive statements by countries like Germany, Poland and others. We cannot afford to take in people that contribute little or nothing (those who work well should be welcomed), and take away money from hard-working taxpayers. They should be looked after by their own nations. The NHS, housing and other aspects are at breaking point and taxpayers' money should be used to help our indigenous population, not everyone in the world who wants to come here to be given an education, healthcare, housing and women, as has been expressed by various illegal migrants to Europe many times.

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Rather than sticking rolling heads on the end of vague statements - why not tell us what YOU think will happen should we leave the EU?

We will probably be part of the EEA, and adhere to all rules and regulations imposed by the EU. And pay our contribution.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you believe there will be no trade with the EU?

Of course there will be. On their terms. See also Hamish comment above on the free movement of people.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If so, do you believe that the rest of the EU are ready to cut off their noses?

50% of our exports go to Europe. 8% of the EU's goes to Britain. Who is about to cut off their nose do you think?

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If so, do you believe this is a great group to be in?

Look, this is where you europhobes got it wrong - again. You think anyone who wishes to stay in the EU thinks it's a great club where everything is hunky dory. It is not. In many areas it's deeply flawed and overly bureaucratic. Still doesn't mean we need to turn our backs on our biggest trading partner and the largest free trade area in the world.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Give us an opinion for once - it's Christmas. Otherwise you'll end the year with 12m worth of laughing at everyone else's opinion but unable to add anything to the plate yourself.

Merry Christmas to you too, Graham.

Graham_Devon

mayonnaise wrote: »

We will probably be part of the EEA,

So I got this far in your post.

8 words. And you'd already contradicted your entire post above....

mayonnaise wrote: »

Because "we'll still be in the EEA or EFTA like Norway or Switzerland", right? :rotfl:

It's all just plain absurd. I really don't get why you go around posting this sort of stuff just to disagree with people when you obviously have some decent points to make. The same points as the people you are rolling around laughing at.

kabayiri

The EU project could be scr*wed anyway.

They don't seem to have a plan to deal with the Euro basketcase countries except throwing more money at them. The Greece situation is an embarassment.

They are completely split on dealing with refugees. Some of those countries so keen on allowing free movement of labour for their own people aren't so keen on taking in others in large numbers.

The biggest threat to the European project is Europe itself, and it's inability to deal with the problems it faces.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They have been a bit of a pointless exercise to start with really, with the negotiations being watered down to avoid humiliation. Thing is, theres not much point in the negotiations now as they don't touch on the concerns of many people. So it's all a bit of a pointless, very expensive sideshow.

Lot of hot air shown in public. The Eastern Europeans need the UK to stay in. Germany needs an ally too. There'll be a compromise. Then it's down to the UK electorate to decide.

The news yesterday.

Brussels bureaucrats will today pocket thousands of euros in generous Christmas bonuses despite their shambolic handling of the migrant crisis.

In the face of the tightening of belts across continent, the European Union is to reward its civil servants with a bumper 2.4 per cent pay rise next year costing nearly 100million euros (£74million), it can be revealed.

The inflation-busting increase will be backdated six months to July meaning staff will get an extra treat in their pay packets today.

zagubov

Will EFTA want us back even though we invented it? I pointed out last year they've been turning up at SNP conferences for years but Scotland's absorbable and a better fit.

The UK's many times bigger and would swamp it. And does being in the EEA deliver what the UK wants anyway?

.string.

Sapphire wrote: »

Unless there are some major changes to the EU before the vote (which I doubt), I'll be voting to leave because I feel the EU is a failure and dysfunctional, and looks likely to get worse. Among other things:

1. I do not want Britain to be a part of a United States of Germany, dictated to by other nations, most of which contribute far less financially to the EU than Britain does.

2. Merkel and Junker attempt to interfere with the sovereignty of other nations, which have their own traditions and cultures, and do not want to be merged into one Germanic whole. Until the illegal migrant crisis (which Frau Merkel and co. have failed miserably to deal with, and even encouraged, and which looks set to end in disaster for Europe), I thought being part of the EU meant cooperating on trade matters, not on national sovereignty. I worry very much about the security of Europe, given the huge influx of people who are largely inimical to Europe and its culture and traditions, and who are unlikely to change but will want to change us and ultimately bring about the sort of situation there is currently in the ME the more their populations grow.

3. Persuading the majority of countries in the EU to use the same currency was idiotic, given how different each of the economies is. Any fool could have seen that this would not work – and it is likely to have even more negative repercussions on all EU countries in future than it has already.

4. Britain would save a great deal of money – all those dinners for the bureaucrats, not to mention the huge roads in Poland (which I was astonished to see on my last visit) and other such 'grants' to the 'poor' countries of the EU come largely courtesy of Britain and Germany.

5. I find it abominable that France, a co-member with Britain in the EU, has not resolved the issue of the migrant camp in Calais, and of other undesirables who are trying to break into Britain. These are violent illegal migrants armed with machetes and knives, are intimidating the lorry drivers to a great degree, and affecting trade by spoiling many trade goods. Why has France not returned them from whence they came? Why were they allowed to land on Europe's shores and travel across the continent in the first place? Why is there no mechanism for returning such people immediately to their places of origin? Why is there not stronger action against those who are smuggled across to Britain? They should be removed from our country immediately, not allowed to hang about indefinitely, to the detriment of Britain. Why are we paying France to keep these illegal immigrants out of our country, when they are plainly the responsibility of France and other countries who let them into France?

5. If the Scots hate the English, Welsh and Irish so much, fine, let them leave the United Kingdom, and adopt the Euro and other EU practices. I used to like the Scots, but am thoroughly sick of them and their whining and demands for special privileges.

We can forge our own trade agreements more on our own terms – and not just with countries in the EU – without being humiliated by countries of the EU 'bloc'. It might take some time and effort, but it can be done. Britain should not appear spineless in the face of attempts at bullying and aggressive statements by countries like Germany, Poland and others. We cannot afford to take in people that contribute little or nothing (those who work well should be welcomed), and take away money from hard-working taxpayers. They should be looked after by their own nations. The NHS, housing and other aspects are at breaking point and taxpayers' money should be used to help our indigenous population, not everyone in the world who wants to come here to be given an education, healthcare, housing and women, as has been expressed by various illegal migrants to Europe many times.

A nice post, Saphire. As you will soon read, I don't agree with you this time but I appreciate the time you took to list your concerns. I hope I put my response in polite enough terms!

On point 1 --- This comes up many times, which in a way is not surprising because I think by far most of us in the UK do not want the UK to be subjugated to a federal Europe. So much so in fact that it is simply not going to happen. It's . A bit of an imaginary tiger in my view. Of course it's a favoured scare.

Referring to a United States of Germany is a bit naughty. Let's not live in a world of over 70 years ago please!

However one of the issues Cameron is negotiating about is the opting out of the "Ever closer union" mantra. I remember that this was an issue in a previous treaty change and it was relegated to the introduction of the treaty (sneaked in some would say, including me). Although it is overegged, I do think that issue can be solved, if not the veto will be used quite a bit I think. I would agree Euro zealots have misused the "ever closer" phrase in a manner which was not intended. That must be stopped, but easier done with the EU methinks. The key, as Major reminded us recently, is the reaffirmation of subsidiarity where responsibilities are only placed with the EU when national parliaments can't handle it.

On point 2, I agree that other countries don't want their cultures suppressed, which is another reason it's not going to happen as some fear, give or take the widespread use of the English language. I don't agree that Merkel and Junkers are plotting anything, except the recovery of the Euro currency.

On point 3 --- we're not in the Euro, so it's not really a leave/remain issue for us.

On point 4 --- I think it's normal to want to support economies that grow to add to the overall volume of trade, but whether the balance is right between National and EU funding, or whether polish roads are actually subsudised let alone paid for by the EU I really don't know. As far as I know, however, EU funding is an apportioned funding

On point 5 --- I suspect that if we were not in the EU with France, the French would happily let all those people go and it would be up to us to deal with them when they arrived at Dover! The migrant issues you refer to are not really remain/leave matters.

On point 5/6 an interesting one. You refer obliquely there to a possible English Backlash against Scotland should they leave the UK. Such a think is quite likely, if not in actual hostility but in disinterest in favoring Scottish interests by concentrating on things which are solely beneficial to the rUK. I would expect we would see the same cold shoulder from the continent if we left the EU. More so in fact since we don't generally have the same underlying personal friendships. We won't get (as do the Scots at present) favoured treatment; not at all.

My view is that there are things to improve in the EU and they need fixing, but we are fortunate to belong to this huge trading block without being encumbered by some of the disadvantages, like the common currency. It would be maniac to throw all that away and embark on our own self-important "Jingoland" ("Natland" is © for the SNP's fairy-land).

For me I'd like to see improvements in the areas already identified by Cameron, except the extreme and indefensible going in position of barring EU workers from benefits if they fall on hard times. I think we are better than that.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

A nice post, Saphire. As you will soon read, I don't agree with you this time but I appreciate the time you took to list your concerns. I hope I put my response in polite enough terms!

On point 1 --- This comes up many times, which in a way is not surprising because I think by far most of us in the UK do not want the UK to be subjugated to a federal Europe. So much so in fact that it is simply not going to happen. It's . A bit of an imaginary tiger in my view. Of course it's a favoured scare.

Referring to a United States of Germany is a bit naughty. Let's not live in a world of over 70 years ago please!

However one of the issues Cameron is negotiating about is the opting out of the "Ever closer union" mantra. I remember that this was an issue in a previous treaty change and it was relegated to the introduction of the treaty (sneaked in some would say, including me). Although it is overegged, I do think that issue can be solved, if not the veto will be used quite a bit I think. I would agree Euro zealots have misused the "ever closer" phrase in a manner which was not intended. That must be stopped, but easier done with the EU methinks. The key, as Major reminded us recently, is the reaffirmation of subsidiarity where responsibilities are only placed with the EU when national parliaments can't handle it.

.

just to take one point

do you believe that Germany's invitation for anyone from Syria (and de facto from anywhere) to come to Germany (and then be compulsorily shared out between the 28 EU nations
was a decision of Germany alone
or a considered joint decision of the EU nations?

The issue of further and closer integration is ongoing and inevitable : to simply deny isn't an argument.
The Major comment was totally wrong and nonsense wishful thinking : give us a half a dozen examples (or maybe one) were power is being given back to individual countries