Yet parties supporting the EU keep getting elected. So by voting for the current government in which both parties are pro EU that is democratic. That is how our system works.
There was a referendum before and the vote was 2 to 1 to stay in so that was democratic.
Surely you can't forget (or ignore) the last European Election Results?
The highest number of elected UK representatives returned by the UK was UKIP with 24 seats. To me that's a pretty resounding message to the current Government and opposition that they're starting to lose the battle.
They're not helped by their European colleagues who are hardly falling over themselves to make the EU enticing for UK voters.
37% Turnout
Anti EU votes approx 30% (UKIP (27% and two minor parties)
Yet parties supporting the EU keep getting elected. So by voting for the current government in which both parties are pro EU that is democratic. That is how our system works.
There was a referendum before and the vote was 2 to 1 to stay in so that was democratic.
Surely you can't forget (or ignore) the last European Election Results?
The highest number of elected UK representatives returned by the UK was UKIP with 24 seats. To me that's a pretty resounding message to the current Government and opposition that they're starting to lose the battle.
They're not helped by their European colleagues who are hardly falling over themselves to make the EU enticing for UK voters.
UKIP got 27.5% of the vote. Add on other anti-EU parties such as the BNP, English Democrats and various communist parties, and you get to about 30%. The pro-EU parties got about 70%.
The fact is when a vote was held on membership of the "Common market" some nearly 40 years ago nobody told the British population of the extent of national government powers that would be eroded.
What powers have been eroded?
Border controls/Immigration? You might have noticed that it's quite a hot topic at the moment.
The fact is when a vote was held on membership of the "Common market" some nearly 40 years ago nobody told the British population of the extent of national government powers that would be eroded.
What powers have been eroded?
Border controls/Immigration? You might have noticed that it's quite a hot topic at the moment.
Works both ways, we are free to move across member countries borders as well
@colthe3rd to go through all of the powers that have been eroded would take weeks! Just for starters though how about: the ability to control our own borders there must be some reason that people travel through the EU to get here? The loss of jurisdiction of our courts to the extent that our supreme judiciary has to adhere to what ever is dictated to them by the EU courts. The fact that we put billions into an organisation without that institution being held accountable for what happens to those monies. I could go into the ludicrous amount of red tape that companies go through because of EU dictats but I'm afraid it would simply take too long! I am a democrat and whole heartedly appreciate that people have strongly held beliefs on this issue on all sides, to those supporting membership I would say have the debate and let us decide. I am afraid however that the political elite do not want this referendum, if they lose the argument of course many will have to step off a very lucrative gravy train.
The opinion polls are fluctuating on the issue but I did see somewhere that the anti EU vote was down because the "nasty" party image of UKIP now has more exposure and is putting people off. Immigration and EU membership are becoming more and more important to the voters simply because UKIP are driving the agenda. It is a failure of the centre left and centre right (in all European countries) to articulate a post 2007-09 crash 21st century vision. This in turn has allowed anti EU parties to secure 20% of the vote in many countries. Not a majority and not a force in a coalition but enough to make a lot of populist noise. And just like post depression / post Weimar republic in the 1930s the far right blame immigration or someone "different" for the ills experienced by ordinary working people. Cameron is behaving like a drunk in a casino lurching all over the place and one hopes he will pay the price next May.
The irony is that the UK has a very strong hand to play in Europe! The EU needs reform for sure and Germany, Finland and stronger economies could do with a hand spelling out that deregulation in France and Italy might be painful but should generate growth for all. A referendum sounds democratic but there is a whole rationale for not having one - starting with the outcome of the general election next May. And the need to build stronger relations with our partners not have a two year navel gazing exercise which will paralyse any meaningful progress. I might be wrong but what decent hard working people want is jobs, progress, security, low inflation and gently increasing living standards and house prices. Basically a reward for playing the game and a future for their children and their children's children. My presumption is that the parties which promotes the most compelling vision will benefit next May. Unfortunately some people are becoming obsessed with annual net immigration of 250,000. Rather than celebrating diversity and that the UK must be a good place to live (especially if you are a doctor!) somehow these 250,000 are being blamed for stagnant or declining living standards. What did they say in 1930s Germany? If you're going to tell a lie start with a really big one!
@colthe3rd to go through all of the powers that have been eroded would take weeks! Just for starters though how about: the ability to control our own borders there must be some reason that people travel through the EU to get here? The loss of jurisdiction of our courts to the extent that our supreme judiciary has to adhere to what ever is dictated to them by the EU courts. The fact that we put billions into an organisation without that institution being held accountable for what happens to those monies. I could go into the ludicrous amount of red tape that companies go through because of EU dictats but I'm afraid it would simply take too long! I am a democrat and whole heartedly appreciate that people have strongly held beliefs on this issue on all sides, to those supporting membership I would say have the debate and let us decide. I am afraid however that the political elite do not want this referendum, if they lose the argument of course many will have to step off a very lucrative gravy train.
Yet parties supporting the EU keep getting elected. So by voting for the current government in which both parties are pro EU that is democratic. That is how our system works.
There was a referendum before and the vote was 2 to 1 to stay in so that was democratic.
Surely you can't forget (or ignore) the last European Election Results?
The highest number of elected UK representatives returned by the UK was UKIP with 24 seats. To me that's a pretty resounding message to the current Government and opposition that they're starting to lose the battle.
They're not helped by their European colleagues who are hardly falling over themselves to make the EU enticing for UK voters.
UKIP got 27.5% of the vote. Add on other anti-EU parties such as the BNP, English Democrats and various communist parties, and you get to about 30%. The pro-EU parties got about 70%.
No I'm not a politician, in all honesty I'm not really very political, this debate does need to be had though, it's too important to let unelected autocrats decide our future.
i dont remember the vote to enter the EU but in sure it was heavily IN favour. Im also sure that given the weight of ALL the main parties ,businesses and the main media any vote would also result in another heavy vote FOR staying in. The argument for what happens if we were to leave hasnt been made.its easy to show the failings of the EU ---EASY.The jump into the unknown alone will sway a good % to stay in let alone any economic argument.
The idea of the EU is a great one it has two huge flaws(IMO) the free movement of people is one and the currency is the other--both are fixable as long as they are recognised as ISSUES.
The free movement of people------------set quotas (adjustable)--- no access to any benefits for 3 years or increased NI cons for 3 years------begging =immediate removal to home country.
No one with a criminal record of rape--child abuse, murder or organised crime can seek work or emigrate to another EU country.
surely if there was a vote the "stay ins" would win easily and then where do UKIP go ? its the end of that party, isnt it ?
The fact is when a vote was held on membership of the "Common market" some nearly 40 years ago nobody told the British population of the extent of national government powers that would be eroded.
What powers have been eroded?
Border controls/Immigration? You might have noticed that it's quite a hot topic at the moment.
There's been freedom of movement within the EU since well before the UK joined. We signed up to that when we joined.
The difference is that there are now a lot more EU countries - but that was really pushed by the UK.
Rant or opinion? There is lots of evidence out there re the non sign off eu budgets and of eu courts over turning uk courts try google shouldn't take you long
The fact is when a vote was held on membership of the "Common market" some nearly 40 years ago nobody told the British population of the extent of national government powers that would be eroded.
What powers have been eroded?
Border controls/Immigration? You might have noticed that it's quite a hot topic at the moment.
Works both ways, we are free to move across member countries borders as well
The fact is when a vote was held on membership of the "Common market" some nearly 40 years ago nobody told the British population of the extent of national government powers that would be eroded.
What powers have been eroded?
Border controls/Immigration? You might have noticed that it's quite a hot topic at the moment.
Works both ways, we are free to move across member countries borders as well
Most of us don't want to.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there. Either way we get benefits from it as do the EU as a whole.
The fact is when a vote was held on membership of the "Common market" some nearly 40 years ago nobody told the British population of the extent of national government powers that would be eroded.
What powers have been eroded?
Border controls/Immigration? You might have noticed that it's quite a hot topic at the moment.
Works both ways, we are free to move across member countries borders as well
Most of us don't want to.
Really?
When you say "most of us" , do you have some opinion poll that confirms that the vast majority of the UK population have no interest in traveling across let alone living in a Europe?
Are you aware that well over half a million UK citizens own property in France alone?
You must surely be aware that many more are in Spain including a decent number of our criminal underclass.
And as for travel within Europe, good God, Ryanair, EasyJet, and Eurostar have all built businesses based on British appetite for free movement within Europe.
dosnt seem to effect Wall Street or Singapore money goes World wide and has feek all to do with who is in the EU or not.
as for only contributing 15% of the dosh in the pot------who the f--k is going to make up the difference ? Italy ? Spain? ROI ? Turkey ? maybe Germany ? yes i mean after all their propping up the Euro zone so why not cover another 15 % net contribution ??
they dont want or need our 15% so why are they so hot on the trail of £1.7 billion SURCHARGE for being more successful than we should be ? lets just fail completely and let the other countries bail us out----------------oooooooooooo f--k we cant they already beat us to it.
bollox to all this lets have the vote---in or out----and make it final. On one side Tory/Labour/LibTwats ---and the majority of big busines. The other side UKIP should be a total walk over-------------get a set of gonads and lets vote.
What has the European Union ever done for us?
Nothing!
Well, except for
improving food safety measures introducing better air quality standards providing quality standards for drinking water introducing water quality standards for the sea providing support for small and medium sized businesses drastically improving passenger rights ensuring fairer trials across the whole EU and introducing the European Arrest Warrant so that criminals can be brought to justice faster taking a global lead on climate change securing our energy supplies protecting children through internet safety and toy safety coordinating help for international disasters promoting gender equality fighting trafficking, abuse and violence against women improving healthcare standards across Europe controlling hazardous chemicals improving consumer rights, especially online, with more transparency and improved return rights improving safety in the workplace improving employee representation in the workplace guaranteeing breaks and holiday times in the workplace strengthening deposit guarantee schemes so that our savings are protected up to EUR 100,000 reducing telephone costs reducing mobile phone roaming charges recognising member states’ driving licences across the EU allowing us to live and work in any EU country guaranteeing us medical care in any EU country guaranteeing legal protection across the EU fighting organised crime organising migration from non-EU states deregulating air travel to provide more competition and lower prices introducing a common currency for over 300 million people, removing exchange charges guaranteeing freedom of religion promoting the development of regenerable energy enabling students to study abroad promoting the production of European films protecting the diversity of European languages promoting regional culture But apart from that? Nothing!
Well, except for creating the longest period of peace and stability in Europe ever seen in the whole of history.
You say the EU had improved consumer rights. I've just been to the apple shop to complain about my broken iPhone. I was told that I only have one year warranty. Is this wrong? Have the EU increased warranty lengths ?
There's a big difference between travelling to other countries and living there. We can visit most countries in the world without problems, even though they're not in the EU.
dosnt seem to effect Wall Street or Singapore money goes World wide and has feek all to do with who is in the EU or not.
as for only contributing 15% of the dosh in the pot------who the f--k is going to make up the difference ? Italy ? Spain? ROI ? Turkey ? maybe Germany ? yes i mean after all their propping up the Euro zone so why not cover another 15 % net contribution ??
they dont want or need our 15% so why are they so hot on the trail of £1.7 billion SURCHARGE for being more successful than we should be ? lets just fail completely and let the other countries bail us out----------------oooooooooooo f--k we cant they already beat us to it.
bollox to all this lets have the vote---in or out----and make it final. On one side Tory/Labour/LibTwats ---and the majority of big busines. The other side UKIP should be a total walk over-------------get a set of gonads and lets vote.
What has the European Union ever done for us?
Nothing!
Well, except for
improving food safety measures introducing better air quality standards providing quality standards for drinking water introducing water quality standards for the sea providing support for small and medium sized businesses drastically improving passenger rights ensuring fairer trials across the whole EU and introducing the European Arrest Warrant so that criminals can be brought to justice faster taking a global lead on climate change securing our energy supplies protecting children through internet safety and toy safety coordinating help for international disasters promoting gender equality fighting trafficking, abuse and violence against women improving healthcare standards across Europe controlling hazardous chemicals improving consumer rights, especially online, with more transparency and improved return rights improving safety in the workplace improving employee representation in the workplace guaranteeing breaks and holiday times in the workplace strengthening deposit guarantee schemes so that our savings are protected up to EUR 100,000 reducing telephone costs reducing mobile phone roaming charges recognising member states’ driving licences across the EU allowing us to live and work in any EU country guaranteeing us medical care in any EU country guaranteeing legal protection across the EU fighting organised crime organising migration from non-EU states deregulating air travel to provide more competition and lower prices introducing a common currency for over 300 million people, removing exchange charges guaranteeing freedom of religion promoting the development of regenerable energy enabling students to study abroad promoting the production of European films protecting the diversity of European languages promoting regional culture But apart from that? Nothing!
Well, except for creating the longest period of peace and stability in Europe ever seen in the whole of history.
You say the EU had improved consumer rights. I've just been to the apple shop to complain about my broken iPhone. I was told that I only have one year warranty. Is this wrong? Have the EU increased warranty lengths ?
This has been written about several times on CL . All across the EU, countries have adopted the EU directive whereby all consumer goods of that nature have a two year warranty. They did so because everybody across the EU thought it was a good idea. However, contrary to what people like Farage would have you believe, an EU directive isn't actually automatically a law in the UK. And for reasons best known to UK politicians the UK isn't implementing this one.
So all this crap about losing sovereignty is shown up to be crap by this example. It also shows what I keep saying. That most of the things people complain about regarding their lives in the UK can and should be addressed by elected UK representatives and people should not be fooled into blaming the EU for everything.
Those of us who lived in Britain outside the EEC prior to 1973 will remember why there was a positive image of the EEC and many will have a very different image today. The reasons for joining originally and why there was a 1975 YES referendum result to stay in, are no longer relevant. Throughout the 1960's we saw how de Gaulle was blocking Britain's overtures to seek entry to the Common Market. The original EEC members could trade amongst themselves without incurring the trade tariffs on imports which the rest of the World had to incur if they wanted to trade. Britain looked on from the outside in envy.
Post WWII the World was putting up barriers to protect national interests like coal and steel production and food production. The general view was, unless Britain was apart of the EEC, we would fall further and further behind France, Germany Italy etc. and had no future in the modern World. We would be excluded from markets for our exports and in bad harvests Britain would be at the mercy of inflated prices from outside Europe who would not have to share their produce with Britain. Remember food rationing was still in the memory of most folk.
De Gaulle twice humiliated Britain and vetoed our entry on a formal vote. He said as an Island nation we were not suited to be a member. Only when De Gaulle and secured the guaranteed prices for French farmers within the EEC did he change his mind, the EEC now was desperate for some new cash to support the French farmers' subsidies.
The referendum in 1975, two years after entry, was preceded by the expected public information and debates. Nowhere will you find any mention of the federal objectives of the Community. As in the Scottish referendum, the risks of a NO vote carried more weight than the positives for exiting. Like the Scottish referendum the NO arguments were entirely negative:-
Uncertainty, new trade terms would be harsh, unemployment and inflation would rise, tariffs would hamper exports to EEC countries, having too comply with EEC terms but have no power to influence, we would be outsiders looking in. The last one was particularly powerful given the exclusion of Britain before entry.
The days of protectionism have gone, the commercial drivers for having a secure market in Europe and the difficulties of trading in a protectionist World outside Europe have vanished. The social reforms driven by the EEC could have been achieved outside the EU and Parliament is capable of making reforms as well as the EU.
My personal view is that the EU was created to cater for a discreet number of countries with common interests but that model is, and never was, scalable to cater for the diversity of interests as new member countries come on board. De Gaulle's instinct was probably right, the federal objective of the community does not sit easily with Britain as an island nation. So I believe the EU concept should be retained for the select group of commonly minded nations which originally created it. Globalisation has largely removed trade tariffs and protectionism. Nations have to compete in a global market and trade blocks are not healthy and should not be encouraged. If nations want your goods they will trade and reach agreement on the red tape. There will be mutual commercial interests that will result in workable arrangements, regardless of what else is going on. We only have theoretical influence on EU regulations, so are in the same position having to comply, whether in or out of the EU.
Control of our borders and managing the balance between resources and claims on resources is not anti-immigration, despite how it is portrayed in an effort to discredit individuals voicing that view. They are valid objectives that many voters feel strongly about. Those objectives are easier achieved outside the EU than within it, and if the debate could be carried on without the left wing demagogues shouting racist at any opportunity or suggesting immigrants are being blamed for anything, it might ensure the ground is not left open for the BNP element to exploit.
The younger population who have only ever lived under the EU, no doubt have a different perspective, but I personally do not relate to the fear of damage and chaos if we exit as envisaged by those supporting continued membership of the EU.
Immigration is a complete red herring used to generate votes. A bigger labour market can only be better for the economy and it is a fact that immigrants tend to be net contributors in the tax/benefits games i.e. benefit tourism is completely nullified by the huge economic contributions hardworking migrants make.
I do not think so as a good percentage of immigrants earn at or below the £10k mark which is the point where people start paying tax. So they're not paying any tax and benefitting from benefits such as housing in lieu of their low earnings, their kids go to school and health services are free and all these adds up to a deficit.
Every study I've seen on this subject puts the cost of benefit tourism as a trivial fraction of the amount of tax migrants to the UK pay. The strain migrants put on public services is a somewhat different matter that I addressed in my post i.e. that the Treasury are both failing to capitalise on the economic benefits of immigration and aren't spending revenues earned from migrants on improving and expanding public services. My one concern is that the wider ecological and social effects of massive population increases will be a far higher cost than benefit tourism.
There's also the matter that the EU's 'accountants' (i.e. Germany) has magicked a bill for £1.6bn out of thin air that they want the UK to pay, clearly timed to punish the UK for her continuing insubordinance. The justification for staying in this nasty little club of squalid republics is shrinking every day.
This is utter and complete rubbish. Where do you get this stuff?
What actually happens, as announced by the EU on 27th October: EU budget Commissioner Jacek Dominik will make a statement on the annual mechanical adjustment of member states’ gross national income (GNI) contribution to the EU budget, based on data provided by member states. So, we have our own data being used to fine-tune the EU budget. As it is each and every year. The "pot" is then divided up according to how each nation's GNI has been calculated. It so happens that the UK has been doing rather well, so its contribution has increased marginally. Why politicians should get in a tizzy about that is beyond me.
For the sake of clarity: The four largest net contributors in per capita terms are Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy. The four largest net contributors as a proportion of GDP are Denmark, Italy, Germany, Finland.
You'll notice that the UK does not feature - it probably should, as should France.
Considering the fact that external accountants consistently refuse to sign off the EU's accounts, we shouldn't take their numbers at face value. If they want an extra £2bn, I'm sure they'll find it if they ask a few of the bureaucrats to turn out their pockets.
More misinformation about the EU I'm afraid. The thing is the EU budget gets "signed off" (or not, as usually the case) as one whole budget and there are, inevitably, "errors" within certain aspects: typically agriculture and regional projects. The European Court of Auditors runs a tough ship and does not tolerate such things. That's why it doesn't sign off the accounts. However, it has declared that the EU accounts are "reliable".
By contrast the UK budget is split into various sub-sets and each is signed off separately. Here's what the expert has to say: "If I had to operate the EU system, then, because I qualify 13 accounts, I might have to qualify the whole of British central government expenditure." That's from the UK Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn.
Another myth is that we are run by "Eurocrats". Here's what the organisation itself says:
Myth 1: "EU Budget is decided undemocratically by eurocrats in Brussels and spent without any control" NOT TRUE This is the Council of Ministers (representing Member States' governments) and the European Parliament that decide the EU budget. The process is fully democratic and transparent – starting from the Commission making its proposal of the preliminary draft budget in April/May each year to the final agreement of the Council and the Parliament in November/December. As much as 76% of the EU expenditure is managed by Member States themselves (under so-called shared management). It is up to the European Parliament, following the judgement of the Court of Auditors and on the recommendation of the Council, to decide whether the Commission has managed EU funds correctly. All EU institutions together (the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions etc.) "cost" around EUR 5.5 cents per each Euro spent from the EU budget.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78720000/gif/_78720145_taxbreakdown_govexample.gif The tax break down is all very interesting, it does not however address the points re audited budget sign off, EU courts holding ultimate powers over UK courts or allowing the UK to control our own borders. I am not anti European and the idea of a common market makes perfect sense, the idea of a European superstate brought in via vain lying politicians who are not accountable to the voters just makes no sense at all.
This has been written about several times on CL . All across the EU, countries have adopted the EU directive whereby all consumer goods of that nature have a two year warranty. They did so because everybody across the EU thought it was a good idea. However, contrary to what people like Farage would have you believe, an EU directive isn't actually automatically a law in the UK. And for reasons best known to UK politicians the UK isn't implementing this one.
So all this crap about losing sovereignty is shown up to be crap by this example. It also shows what I keep saying. That most of the things people complain about regarding their lives in the UK can and should be addressed by elected UK representatives and people should not be fooled into blaming the EU for everything.
But Prague, playing devils advocate here, if we dont adhere to the good directives then it is even more pointless being a member....
after the Labour party telling us for 13 years mass immigration WASNT happening---and then only 6,000 Poles would come ---then everyone is 60p better off because of their mass immigration (even tho they couldnt and still cant tell us how many actually came in)-------------------------------------------------------------any statistic trolled out by the left can feck off up a dark place where they talk out of.
Interesting - why you show a Pie Chart which puts the UK contribution at the bottom of the list. The break down varies vastly according to your Tax/NI contributions.
Cant arugue with the account spoint but wither regard to EU overuling UK courts this is inaccurate. When UK courts have been overuled it is by the European Court of Human Rights which is a seperate entity apart from the European Union.
Cant arugue with the account spoint but wither regard to EU overuling UK courts this is inaccurate. When UK courts have been overuled it is by the European Court of Human Rights which is a seperate entity apart from the European Union.
The European Court of Justice, which decidedly is an EU Court, can also overrule UK courts.
Comments
Anti EU votes approx 30% (UKIP (27% and two minor parties)
Significant but still a minority.
Could well increase though.
The fact that we put billions into an organisation without that institution being held accountable for what happens to those monies.
I could go into the ludicrous amount of red tape that companies go through because of EU dictats but I'm afraid it would simply take too long!
I am a democrat and whole heartedly appreciate that people have strongly held beliefs on this issue on all sides, to those supporting membership I would say have the debate and let us decide.
I am afraid however that the political elite do not want this referendum, if they lose the argument of course many will have to step off a very lucrative gravy train.
Immigration and EU membership are becoming more and more important to the voters simply because UKIP are driving the agenda.
It is a failure of the centre left and centre right (in all European countries) to articulate a post 2007-09 crash 21st century vision. This in turn has allowed anti EU parties to secure 20% of the vote in many countries. Not a majority and not a force in a coalition but enough to make a lot of populist noise.
And just like post depression / post Weimar republic in the 1930s the far right blame immigration or someone "different" for the ills experienced by ordinary working people.
Cameron is behaving like a drunk in a casino lurching all over the place and one hopes he will pay the price next May.
The irony is that the UK has a very strong hand to play in Europe! The EU needs reform for sure and Germany, Finland and stronger economies could do with a hand spelling out that deregulation in France and Italy might be painful but should generate growth for all.
A referendum sounds democratic but there is a whole rationale for not having one - starting with the outcome of the general election next May. And the need to build stronger relations with our partners not have a two year navel gazing exercise which will paralyse any meaningful progress.
I might be wrong but what decent hard working people want is jobs, progress, security, low inflation and gently increasing living standards and house prices. Basically a reward for playing the game and a future for their children and their children's children.
My presumption is that the parties which promotes the most compelling vision will benefit next May.
Unfortunately some people are becoming obsessed with annual net immigration of 250,000. Rather than celebrating diversity and that the UK must be a good place to live (especially if you are a doctor!) somehow these 250,000 are being blamed for stagnant or declining living standards. What did they say in 1930s Germany? If you're going to tell a lie start with a really big one!
Our National Elections are first passed the post.
The argument for what happens if we were to leave hasnt been made.its easy to show the failings of the EU ---EASY.The jump into the unknown alone will sway a good % to stay in let alone any economic argument.
The idea of the EU is a great one it has two huge flaws(IMO) the free movement of people is one and the currency is the other--both are fixable as long as they are recognised as ISSUES.
The free movement of people------------set quotas (adjustable)--- no access to any benefits for 3 years or increased NI cons for 3 years------begging =immediate removal to home country.
No one with a criminal record of rape--child abuse, murder or organised crime can seek work or emigrate to another EU country.
surely if there was a vote the "stay ins" would win easily and then where do UKIP go ? its the end of that party, isnt it ?
The difference is that there are now a lot more EU countries - but that was really pushed by the UK.
When you say "most of us" , do you have some opinion poll that confirms that the vast majority of the UK population have no interest in traveling across let alone living in a Europe?
Are you aware that well over half a million UK citizens own property in France alone?
You must surely be aware that many more are in Spain including a decent number of our criminal underclass.
And as for travel within Europe, good God, Ryanair, EasyJet, and Eurostar have all built businesses based on British appetite for free movement within Europe.
I've just been to the apple shop to complain about my broken iPhone. I was told that I only have one year warranty. Is this wrong? Have the EU increased warranty lengths ?
So all this crap about losing sovereignty is shown up to be crap by this example. It also shows what I keep saying. That most of the things people complain about regarding their lives in the UK can and should be addressed by elected UK representatives and people should not be fooled into blaming the EU for everything.
Post WWII the World was putting up barriers to protect national interests like coal and steel production and food production. The general view was, unless Britain was apart of the EEC, we would fall further and further behind France, Germany Italy etc. and had no future in the modern World. We would be excluded from markets for our exports and in bad harvests Britain would be at the mercy of inflated prices from outside Europe who would not have to share their produce with Britain. Remember food rationing was still in the memory of most folk.
De Gaulle twice humiliated Britain and vetoed our entry on a formal vote. He said as an Island nation we were not suited to be a member. Only when De Gaulle and secured the guaranteed prices for French farmers within the EEC did he change his mind, the EEC now was desperate for some new cash to support the French farmers' subsidies.
The referendum in 1975, two years after entry, was preceded by the expected public information and debates. Nowhere will you find any mention of the federal objectives of the Community. As in the Scottish referendum, the risks of a NO vote carried more weight than the positives for exiting. Like the Scottish referendum the NO arguments were entirely negative:-
Uncertainty, new trade terms would be harsh, unemployment and inflation would rise, tariffs would hamper exports to EEC countries, having too comply with EEC terms but have no power to influence, we would be outsiders looking in. The last one was particularly powerful given the exclusion of Britain before entry.
The days of protectionism have gone, the commercial drivers for having a secure market in Europe and the difficulties of trading in a protectionist World outside Europe have vanished. The social reforms driven by the EEC could have been achieved outside the EU and Parliament is capable of making reforms as well as the EU.
My personal view is that the EU was created to cater for a discreet number of countries with common interests but that model is, and never was, scalable to cater for the diversity of interests as new member countries come on board. De Gaulle's instinct was probably right, the federal objective of the community does not sit easily with Britain as an island nation. So I believe the EU concept should be retained for the select group of commonly minded nations which originally created it. Globalisation has largely removed trade tariffs and protectionism. Nations have to compete in a global market and trade blocks are not healthy and should not be encouraged. If nations want your goods they will trade and reach agreement on the red tape. There will be mutual commercial interests that will result in workable arrangements, regardless of what else is going on. We only have theoretical influence on EU regulations, so are in the same position having to comply, whether in or out of the EU.
Control of our borders and managing the balance between resources and claims on resources is not anti-immigration, despite how it is portrayed in an effort to discredit individuals voicing that view. They are valid objectives that many voters feel strongly about. Those objectives are easier achieved outside the EU than within it, and if the debate could be carried on without the left wing demagogues shouting racist at any opportunity or suggesting immigrants are being blamed for anything, it might ensure the ground is not left open for the BNP element to exploit.
The younger population who have only ever lived under the EU, no doubt have a different perspective, but I personally do not relate to the fear of damage and chaos if we exit as envisaged by those supporting continued membership of the EU.
The European Court of Auditors runs a tough ship and does not tolerate such things. That's why it doesn't sign off the accounts. However, it has declared that the EU accounts are "reliable".
By contrast the UK budget is split into various sub-sets and each is signed off separately.
Here's what the expert has to say: "If I had to operate the EU system, then, because I qualify 13 accounts, I might have to qualify the whole of British central government expenditure." That's from the UK Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn.
Another myth is that we are run by "Eurocrats". Here's what the organisation itself says:
Myth 1: "EU Budget is decided undemocratically by eurocrats in Brussels and spent without any control"
NOT TRUE
This is the Council of Ministers (representing Member States' governments) and the European Parliament that decide the EU budget. The process is fully democratic and transparent – starting from the Commission making its proposal of the preliminary draft budget in April/May each year to the final agreement of the Council and the Parliament in November/December.
As much as 76% of the EU expenditure is managed by Member States themselves (under so-called shared management). It is up to the European Parliament, following the judgement of the Court of Auditors and on the recommendation of the Council, to decide whether the Commission has managed EU funds correctly.
All EU institutions together (the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions etc.) "cost" around EUR 5.5 cents per each Euro spent from the EU budget.
The tax break down is all very interesting, it does not however address the points re audited budget sign off, EU courts holding ultimate powers over UK courts or allowing the UK to control our own borders.
I am not anti European and the idea of a common market makes perfect sense, the idea of a European superstate brought in via vain lying politicians who are not accountable to the voters just makes no sense at all.
This has been written about several times on CL . All across the EU, countries have adopted the EU directive whereby all consumer goods of that nature have a two year warranty. They did so because everybody across the EU thought it was a good idea. However, contrary to what people like Farage would have you believe, an EU directive isn't actually automatically a law in the UK. And for reasons best known to UK politicians the UK isn't implementing this one.
So all this crap about losing sovereignty is shown up to be crap by this example. It also shows what I keep saying. That most of the things people complain about regarding their lives in the UK can and should be addressed by elected UK representatives and people should not be fooled into blaming the EU for everything.
But Prague, playing devils advocate here, if we dont adhere to the good directives then it is even more pointless being a member....
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmeuleg/633/63304.htm
Section 16 is probably the bit to read for a summary.
Oh and Interpol.