Brexit vote

JezR

The Steel and Coal Community was certainly not just a free trade agreement. It involved free movement of workers within those industries.

European Economic and Monetary Union was agreed as a goal amongst the Six in 1969, and was reaffirmed in late 1972 by the soon-to-be Nine. The second step was to take place in 1974 and the third in 1981.

This was open knowledge in the early 1970s and is referred to by UK politicians on both sides of the debate about whether to join and can been seen in contemporary newspapers etc. It was never hidden - although it seems this is forgotten now.

Also in 1972 there was a lot of proposals at the autumn summit about how the European Communities needed to move on from concentration on 'mercantile aspects' to other parts of the 'European Project.

As to welfare, through much of the EU this is insurance-based.

BookerTee

The problem is the EU has mushroomed wildly since our entry until it now infests every part of our lives. It should never have been anything more than a trade agreement which is what our exit should return us back to.

dunstonh

BookerTee wrote: »

The problem is the EU has mushroomed wildly since our entry until it now infests every part of our lives. It should never have been anything more than a trade agreement which is what our exit should return us back to.

It certainly has mushroomed and it is overly bureaucratic and fails to take into account differences in the different countries in respect of culture, habits, social structure, benefits etc.

However, if we left, we will still have to comply with most EU requirements but will have no say on what they are or how they change in future. We will need to pay to access the market. So, it won't be free entry and we may have to instigate rules that we are currently opted out of.

The EU is a bit like Health & Safety. A lot of the things that get blamed on it are nothing to do with it.

For reference, I know I have made several posts now that make me sound like I support the vote to stay in. That is not my intention. I just want answers and the posters in this section are typically more mature and open to sensible discussion and debate. So far, there has been so little discussion and information at high level. The mud throwing and near racist comments get all the media coverage. Everyone is accused of bias and no rational debate given to key issues. So, when I post my comments, I am doing so because often those that say something is going to be better when we are out cannot actually back it up. I am looking for answers.

OldBeanz

The concept for the EU is to move towards more integration so even staying in we will be left behind. How they are going to integrate the work ethics of the Germans with Southern Europe is another bun fight waiting to happen.
As for paying to access the market - then we just have to look to Turkey where the rules are being bent to give them access - it is practical where it needs to be and we are a big importer of their goods and foodstuffs. Are MB, BMW and French farmers prepared to lose share in a lucrative market?
I rate the EU by my relationship with French food. In the seventies you could guarantee a good meal in any town and if copiously supplanted with wine was cheaper than the UK. Now the French cannot work enough hours to run a restaurant. 85% of them buy in food and McDonald's France is the biggest franchise after the USA. I could name half a dozen pubs within 10 miles where I would be guaranteed better and cheaper food then anything I have eaten there in the past 5 years.

BookerTee

dunstonh wrote: »

It certainly has mushroomed and it is overly bureaucratic and fails to take into account differences in the different countries in respect of culture, habits, social structure, benefits etc.

However, if we left, we will still have to comply with most EU requirements but will have no say on what they are or how they change in future. We will need to pay to access the market. So, it won't be free entry and we may have to instigate rules that we are currently opted out of.

Our only connection with Europe should be trade, as such we would continue to comply with stds of construction, safety, compliance electrical stds etc the same as we do with other countries we trade with.

It will cost to remain part of the EU market but it will be a tiny fraction of the money we currently waste being part of the EU.

Beyond that I see no other EU requirements we need to comply with. It was the EU that 'banned' tungsten light bulbs, its the EU who force fishermen to thro back dead cod, they are currently trying to reduce the power of uk toasters and kettles!!! All of this kind of interference would be removed when we exit.

As far as 'having a say', this is another Cameron red herring, we have little if any say on the shape of anything in Europe. Look how far he got with his 'renegotiation deal' for the uk...he got nothing, what does that say about our 'influence' in Europe?

dunstonh wrote: »

The EU is a bit like Health & Safety. A lot of the things that get blamed on it are nothing to do with it.

I would argue that the EU doesnt get blamed anywhere near enough for all of the changes forced on us.

dunstonh wrote: »

For reference, I know I have made several posts now that make me sound like I support the vote to stay in. That is not my intention. I just want answers and the posters in this section are typically more mature and open to sensible discussion and debate. So far, there has been so little discussion and information at high level. The mud throwing and near racist comments get all the media coverage. Everyone is accused of bias and no rational debate given to key issues. So, when I post my comments, I am doing so because often those that say something is going to be better when we are out cannot actually back it up. I am looking for answers.

I think there is very little high level discussion because there is very few high level consequences. Cameron and Osbourne talk about 'steps into the unknown' and 'not taking risks' if they dont know the consequences why do we have to assume they are bad? The real reason they are not specific is because any detail would leave them open to counter arguments (with the truth). They prefer to simply play on 'unknown' fears in the public mind. If they were actually any specifically bad consequences for leaving they would be shouting it from the rooftops...but they are not...

For me it is very simple, do we want to put the Great back into Britain and take back control of our own country or capitulate to EU castration?

JezR

The EU-sponsored research on kettle durability and energy usage was strongly criticised by manufacturers because it was based almost entirely on UK data and practice, obtained through the likes of Which?

People in the UK throw out about four times as many kettles per head compared with Germany.

LHW99

However, if we left, we will still have to comply with most EU requirements but will have no say on what they are or how they change in future.

This true, where we sell things into Europe. But why should it be an issue? We already sell to the US, and many other non-European countries. For those companies that do so, they have to make sure their goods meet the relevant requirements.
For those companies that sell only in the UK however, why should they have to satisfy European regulations any more than those of Canada, Australia ot elsewhere?

If we choose out, the UK can choose which EU requirements it wishes to enforce in the UK, or could choose ones from China or Japan, if they are thought to be more appropriate, rigorous or whatever.
If we choose in, the regulations will be decided by a cabal of 28 countries, or worse by the unelected Commission. It is that democratic deficit that worries me.

jamesperrett

dunstonh wrote: »

For reference, I know I have made several posts now that make me sound like I support the vote to stay in. That is not my intention. I just want answers and the posters in this section are typically more mature and open to sensible discussion and debate. So far, there has been so little discussion and information at high level. The mud throwing and near racist comments get all the media coverage. Everyone is accused of bias and no rational debate given to key issues. So, when I post my comments, I am doing so because often those that say something is going to be better when we are out cannot actually back it up. I am looking for answers.

There are some fairly reasoned arguments both ways in this document

enthusiasticsaver

My OH retires in October of this year and has 2 pensions - a DB pension which will obviously not be affected by the Brexit vote and a DC pension in lifestyle investment fund which could of course depending on stock market. No one knows what will happen in the short term but I am fairly confident that in the medium to long term nothing will change. We just intend to keep a certain percentage of our current savings and my OHs lump sum in cash to supplement his pension and my part time salary over the next 5 years. What the percentage is and where we intend to keep it we are not sure yet. We have just seen an IFA and waiting for him to recommend some options on investing the rest.

dunstonh

and a DC pension in lifestyle investment fund which could of course depending on stock market.

If it is a lifestyle fund and the scheme retirement age is October this year, then its unlikely any of it is in the stockmarket.