Britain can be better off outside Europe

BobQ

wymondham wrote: »

Exactly... we're interested in the original focus of the EU, which was trade and commerce, not the failed social bolt-on aspects which are being peddled as 'mandatory' to spread the responsibility and dilute the blame...

I think you are confusing the EEC with the EU. The EEC was indeed based on economic considerations. But the EU has always considered the wider issues:

"Article I-4 of the Constitution guarantees the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the Union (the famous "four freedoms") and strictly prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality."

Now its quite reasonable to argue you do not believe in these EU freedoms but that is what they are.

The notion of free movement of capital and people do have some laudable purposes including allowing people to move to find work or move to enjoy retirement, and to build a more tolerant society where extremism was less easy to develop. This actually worked for a while, when the member states largely had similar economies.

Where it went wrong was the assumption that you could maintain this model when the EU tried to aborb many nations with relatively poor economies (from the eastern states) without radical changes to the model. Add to that model the intransigence and inflexibility of the EU institutions something had to give.

If Brexit has a positive outcome it will be both to enable the UK to prosper outside of the EU and to initiate meaningful reform within the EU. I suspect it will eventually be more painful for the EU (without the UK) than for the UK, but the tragedy will be if both are negatively impacted.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I hope that this question is serious. As you should researched the matter well before voting in June. For many people it has. I'll leave it you to do some reading.

For me the issue was whether it was a problem best solved within the EU with the UK being a force for change or without us where the shock of us leaving might be the catalyst for change. That die has now been cast.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

Where it went wrong was the assumption that you could maintain this model when the EU tried to aborb many nations with relatively poor economies (from the eastern states) without radical changes to the model. Add to that model the intransigence and inflexibility of the EU institutions something had to give.

Woah..hold on there Bob, as a remain voter you are 100% happy with everything the EU has ever done and ever will do.

Please stick to the official line

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

For me the issue was whether it was a problem best solved within the EU with the UK being a force for change or without us where the shock of us leaving might be the catalyst for change. That die has now been cast.

what changes were you hoping for?

given that the UK wasn't part of the 1st division wanting ever closer integration, why would you think we would have any influence at all?

CLAPTON

AFF8879 wrote: »

Probably because we were the second biggest economy in the bloc.

why would they listen to the UK if they were discussing ever closer union or euro matters

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

Woah..hold on there Bob, as a remain voter you are 100% happy with everything the EU has ever done and ever will do.

Please stick to the official line

There is noyhing inconsistent with what I said before the referendum. I still think Brexit is a higher risk option but we are where we are.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

For me the issue was whether it was a problem best solved within the EU with the UK being a force for change or without us where the shock of us leaving might be the catalyst for change. That die has now been cast.

The UK has no power to influence the economic performance of other countries within the EU. Some of which have been in decline for some years. There's only been one real beneficiary. Going from being the sick man to star performer was based on a favourable exchange rate policy. Nothing else. There was no miracle. Likewise the policy is now unravelling. With GBP at a more realistic level.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

There is noyhing inconsistent with what I said before the referendum. I still think Brexit is a higher risk option but we are where we are.

Are you Jeremy Corbyn?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

what changes were you hoping for?

given that the UK wasn't part of the 1st division wanting ever closer integration, why would you think we would have any influence at all?

That there would be some relaxation of freedom of movement and that the EU would realise that a one size fits all will not work on some issues like security and border control. Things like that. The concept of a first division is itself flawed. The EU needs to move to a more zonal approach. It may make sense for some nations to share a currency or a common travel area but applying that to a large group as diverse as Germany and Bulgaria is too problematic. Equally there are things that can be harmonised across the EU.

BobQ

mrginge wrote: »

Are you Jeremy Corbyn?

Is that a trick question?