It might have been quicker if you had just posted a link to the UKIP website eh?
To be fair the most comprehensive piece on the pros and cons I have seen using independent sources was a UKIP booklet that came through my door last year. Clearly it has an agenda but UKIP has to counter the arguments and back it up with statistics and it covers all the pros before challenging them.
You can damn the statistics but they are raw statistics that you can at least test. You cannot test the pro EU mantra that "we will be worse off" without al least acknowledging there might be some pros.
I've seen nothing from the pro EU camp even acknowledging there might be some positives to consider.
Lowering immigration is the worst possible reason to exit the EU. We thrive because skilled migrants can cross borders and only a tiny fraction of EU migrants are net-cost to the taxpayer.
Likewise business/economic scare stories are also a non-story for staying in the EU. As other posters have pointed out, the Lisbon Treaty guarantees that we would not be disadvantaged economically if we chose to leave.
What it really comes down to is are you getting a good deal out of the EU? Is the extra money you pay for membership out of your taxes worth it? Most people would not really see any major shift in their lives if we left. Most people barely notice the influence the EU has on our lives in the first place.
Unless you are happy to lose all our countryside to housing, travel on ever increasingly congested roads, wait longer for a hospital/GP appointment, have more children in school classes, then we DO need to do something about immigration We can't carry on as we are, this country is too small.
Lowering immigration is the worst possible reason to exit the EU. We thrive because skilled migrants can cross borders and only a tiny fraction of EU migrants are net-cost to the taxpayer.
Likewise business/economic scare stories are also a non-story for staying in the EU. As other posters have pointed out, the Lisbon Treaty guarantees that we would not be disadvantaged economically if we chose to leave.
What it really comes down to is are you getting a good deal out of the EU? Is the extra money you pay for membership out of your taxes worth it? Most people would not really see any major shift in their lives if we left. Most people barely notice the influence the EU has on our lives in the first place.
Unless you are happy to lose all our countryside to housing, travel on ever increasingly congested roads, wait longer for a hospital/GP appointment, have more children in school classes, then we DO need to do something about immigration We can't carry on as we are, this country is too small.
I'm all for population restriction as well but even if we weren't in the EU we would still need inward migration because we simply do not have enough skilled workers to sustain ourselves.
Unfortunately if we want to limit the population, we have to start at home - that means encouraging unskilled workers to leave the country as well as taking measures to discourage people already here from having larger families, at least until we're educating enough natives to a high enough level to sustain the professional economy.
Net immigration of 2-300,000 is not the root cause of service and travel deficiencies in a country with a population of 63 million. Especially when recent studies have shown immigrants are net contributors to the economy, being younger, more highly skilled and more dynamic (in general).
Of course we could trade with the EU if we left but would multinationals wish to locate here, outside of the EU? Will banks and car manufacturers choose mainland Europe?
But I think the most important point mentioned is financial services regulation. It was clearly defective before the 2007-09 crash and needs addressing. One party in government in the UK is not going to have the independence from vested interests nor the bigger picture to deliver anything close to effective for this century.
I think we have to ask ourselves who is funding UKIP and what is their agenda.
As for whether we should have a referendum, well it's here now and I think it should be run asap. A year will be plenty of time to air the issues. And Cameron won't need longer to negotiate changes since they will either be on the table or not! I simply cannot see major treaty changes since the Euro nations do not have appetite right now.
But bigger, richer countries may carve out an understanding on health and benefits to dampen the efforts of the far right anti EU brigade in every country.
So, yes we should stay in and stay as a UK with Scotland to make our way in a global economy AND influence the European political and business environment.
What people don't seem to grasp is that the EU and now the Euro is part of the biggest peace project this planet has ever seen! For sure it needs to evolve and the Crash, Syria and IS plus the changes needed to keep The Euro on track should all keep reform at the top of the agenda.
Walking away from this would be like walking away from Uefa just as things get interesting.
Lowering immigration is the worst possible reason to exit the EU. We thrive because skilled migrants can cross borders and only a tiny fraction of EU migrants are net-cost to the taxpayer.
Likewise business/economic scare stories are also a non-story for staying in the EU. As other posters have pointed out, the Lisbon Treaty guarantees that we would not be disadvantaged economically if we chose to leave.
What it really comes down to is are you getting a good deal out of the EU? Is the extra money you pay for membership out of your taxes worth it? Most people would not really see any major shift in their lives if we left. Most people barely notice the influence the EU has on our lives in the first place.
Unless you are happy to lose all our countryside to housing, travel on ever increasingly congested roads, wait longer for a hospital/GP appointment, have more children in school classes, then we DO need to do something about immigration We can't carry on as we are, this country is too small.
This keeps coming up, like there's a simple choice between migration or not. If we want to stop migration the best bet would be to have the economy crash, then those with any drive to succeed will leave. In the globalised world countries are either destinations for or sources for migrants. Britain is a destination because the economy is pretty open and relatively successful. If Britain comes out of the EU and negotiates some sort of deal like Norway or Switzerland, we will still be a destination for migrants and it will be part of those deals that EU citizens have the right to come and work here.
On the general point, I can see pros and cons in the EU. What I would say is that the level of informed posters on here, on both sides, is refreshing. I hope it continues.
I remember people saying the consequences of not joining the Euro would be disastrous. Turns out all the countries that adopted the Euro have been the slowest to recover from the financial crash.
Wrong again. Take a look at the GDP performance of Slovakia, in the euro. Compare it with that of the Czech republic, not in the euro. They were one country until 1993, therefore about as close a comparison you could get between two sovereign states - in fact Slovakia has the disadvantage of an eastern region which is virtually peasant.
I don't mean to pick on you, but really you shouldn't just believe what you read from just one source/viewpoint, especially when quoting verifiable figures
Net immigration of 2-300,000 is not the root cause of service and travel deficiencies in a country with a population of 63 million. Especially when recent studies have shown immigrants are net contributors to the economy, being younger, more highly skilled and more dynamic (in general).
I agree that generally immigration is beneficial but immigration tends to concentrate itself in certain centres, meaning some communities are disproportionately affected in terms of infrastructure.
Of course we could trade with the EU if we left but would multinationals wish to locate here, outside of the EU? Will banks and car manufacturers choose mainland Europe?
Businesses located here do so because of cost-effectiveness, the business environment and stability, all of which relate to domestic policy and not thanks to our membership of the EU. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, businesses will not be negatively affected if we were to leave the EU.
But I think the most important point mentioned is financial services regulation. It was clearly defective before the 2007-09 crash and needs addressing. One party in government in the UK is not going to have the independence from vested interests nor the bigger picture to deliver anything close to effective for this century.
Considering the EU dropped the ball with the crash and their response has been largely reactive rather than proactive in nature and seems to have caused more issues than it actually helped stop, I don't see this being a good argument to remain in the EU.
I think we have to ask ourselves who is funding UKIP and what is their agenda.
Mostly business owners, entrepreneurs and tycoons who want the UK to leave the EU. Quelle surprise. Their donations are dwarfed by those to Labour and the Tories though.
As for whether we should have a referendum, well it's here now and I think it should be run asap. A year will be plenty of time to air the issues. And Cameron won't need longer to negotiate changes since they will either be on the table or not! I simply cannot see major treaty changes since the Euro nations do not have appetite right now.
A lot of gossip amongst non-UK MEPs indicates that they are pretty afraid of the UK's referendum since it will shine a light on their shadowy practices and in the event the UK does vote to leave, it could be the first of many dominos signalling other nation's exiting. Most MEPs know that the UK has little to lose if it leaves thanks to the Lisbon Treaty and that the EU will be worse off without the UK, not the other way around.
But bigger, richer countries may carve out an understanding on health and benefits to dampen the efforts of the far right anti EU brigade in every country.
I'd hardly call the anti-EU brigade that's currently the governing party of Greece 'far right'.
So, yes we should stay in and stay as a UK with Scotland to make our way in a global economy AND influence the European political and business environment.
We are unable to make in-roads in growing economies such as China or India or to get a more tailored deal with the US on TTIP because the EU does all the negotiating. This has led to us losing business we could have otherwise won if we had been able to negotiate trade with their countries directly.
What people don't seem to grasp is that the EU and now the Euro is part of the biggest peace project this planet has ever seen! For sure it needs to evolve and the Crash, Syria and IS plus the changes needed to keep The Euro on track should all keep reform at the top of the agenda.
What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
@ Fiiish What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
That is a really appalling statement. I strongly recommend you to take a holiday in the Alsace region and remind yourself when you are there (watching the Germans cross the river for lunch, while the French cross the river to go to work) that you are standing in 'the killing fields'. What happened in Alsace twice in the last century was a key driver of the initial agreement. Can you imagine France and Germany going to war in your lifetime now?
Then there is my home for the last 22 years. Three years earlier there were nuclear missiles here pointing at London, and nuclear missiles in Lincolnshire pointing at Prague. That, again, is history. But I'm only still here because of the EU which has whipped the country into something like a functioning civil democracy and puts a brake on the authoritarian tendencies of the old guard of politicians.
I remember people saying the consequences of not joining the Euro would be disastrous. Turns out all the countries that adopted the Euro have been the slowest to recover from the financial crash.
Wrong again. Take a look at the GDP performance of Slovakia, in the euro. Compare it with that of the Czech republic, not in the euro. They were one country until 1993, therefore about as close a comparison you could get between two sovereign states - in fact Slovakia has the disadvantage of an eastern region which is virtually peasant.
I don't mean to pick on you, but really you shouldn't just believe what you read from just one source/viewpoint, especially when quoting verifiable figures
I've been pro-EU for many years and have no doubt posted pro-EU comments on here. However, this is an ever-changing world so I want to hear all the arguments over the coming months before I make my mind up.
Will all the big businesses really move to mainland Europe?
Will we still be able to trade favorably with our EU partners if we are outside, or will we be the Millwall of Europe?
Can we trade successfully as a small nation or should we remain part of a larger trading body to compete with the likes of the USA and China?
I remember people saying the consequences of not joining the Euro would be disastrous. Turns out all the countries that adopted the Euro have been the slowest to recover from the financial crash.
Wrong again. Take a look at the GDP performance of Slovakia, in the euro. Compare it with that of the Czech republic, not in the euro. They were one country until 1993, therefore about as close a comparison you could get between two sovereign states - in fact Slovakia has the disadvantage of an eastern region which is virtually peasant.
I don't mean to pick on you, but really you shouldn't just believe what you read from just one source/viewpoint, especially when quoting verifiable figures
Ye but he was talking about us, not Slovakia.
No he wasn't. He stated that all the countries in the euro recovered more slowly than those EU countries not in the euro. And he is wrong.
He will also find that if you use GDP per head as the measure of economic health the British performance is even less impressive. But this is about the EU, not the euro so we better leave it there.
I am interested in what the outcome of a vote might be, where the majority of votes in the UK are "no", but the majority of votes in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are all "yes".
How would that situation be resolved? Would the no-voting England drag the rest of the UK out of Europe against its will? Would Scotland refuse to be pulled out of Europe and demand, enforce and win a snap exit referendum?
This would be a nightmare scenario in almost every respect.
It is my belief that as Europe evolves, with that should come devolved powers to cities and regions for budgets, health, education and (local) transport. Manchester is evolving rapidly and London, Scotland and Wales already have the framework in place. Local accountable politicians of whatever hue should shape their locality and that in turn will create push and pull factors for locals and migrants alike.
@PragueAddick has addressed the inconsistencies above re. Europe. One only has to look at the middle East and Africa to see the strife arising where there is no central framework.
What I neglected to address is that alongside IS, the whole of Europe faces the common threats and challenges of aging demographics, tax evasion, huge increases in economic and political migration plus health cost inflation.
This is really a challenge for our children and our children's children but I think we should celebrate our common heritage with Europe in terms of politics, structures and culture.
Ps I think you will find that the hard left approach in Greece and now Spain is anti austerity and not anti EU! The problem is that EU macro economic policy has been dictated by Germany but that is shifting for they realise it's causing tensions. The whole of Europe is either stagnant or recovering slightly and a more adventurous approach at a time of near zero interest rates might win through...in the economy and the ballot box.
@ Fiiish What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
That is a really appalling statement. I strongly recommend you to take a holiday in the Alsace region and remind yourself when you are there (watching the Germans cross the river for lunch, while the French cross the river to go to work) that you are standing in 'the killing fields'. What happened in Alsace twice in the last century was a key driver of the initial agreement. Can you imagine France and Germany going to war in your lifetime now?
Then there is my home for the last 22 years. Three years earlier there were nuclear missiles here pointing at London, and nuclear missiles in Lincolnshire pointing at Prague. That, again, is history. But I'm only still here because of the EU which has whipped the country into something like a functioning civil democracy and puts a brake on the authoritarian tendencies of the old guard of politicians.
The EU had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, and most historians would agree that the Soviet Union providing a mutual foe and the rise of a united West/NATO was a much greater factor for the peace between those who are now EU member states than the EU itself. The EU was a natural consequence of European peace, not the other way around.
Not really sure the hyperbole of 'really appalling' is necessary. Just because you live in Europe doesn't give you a pedestal to lecture others on European peace.
The apparent examples of Norway and Switzerland are going to come up. I know a lot less about Switzerland than i do Norway, so I'll confine myself to the latter. One of my best mates lives there and he is Swedish, CEO of a mid size international company, and a lot more right wing than me so he has an interesting perspective to offer.
For now, these are the things I believe everyone should bear in mind about Norway
- because they didn't piss away their share of the North Sea oil and gas, they have this massive sovereign wealth fund which has secured the pensions of the next two generations. They are a bit like the rich man who doesn't really have to work but does it to keep his brain active.
- It has a visceral fear of being "ruled" by anyone since they had quite enough of that from the Swedes and Danes in the past.
- in the last referendum in 1992, the Oslo area voted to join the EU. It was the country areas that voted no. And my word, those areas can be a little odd.
- the specific EU policy that they fear conforming to is on fishing.
- they are - get this - contributors to the EU budget yet they have no say in how their money is spent
- get this also - they are members of the Schengen agreement. Their borders are more open than ours.
- finally if you think leaving the EU will reduce bureaucracy and State interference, go have a beer in Oslo with my buddy (and hope he is paying). He will have some stories for you..
Of course those who voted in the 70s voted for something quite different from what the EU is today. Nobody has ever had a vote as to whether they wanted to be in a political union. For that reason alone we should have had a referendum on this much sooner than we have.
- If we leave the EU our trade with it is totally unaffected (It would be economic madness by other EU countries + Lisbon Treaty stipulates the EU must make a trade agreement with a country that leaves - If we leave the EU we can actually make trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Iceland has more trade agreements with countries than the EU does! - If we leave the EU it cuts the mass amounts of red tape that hits small businesses particularly hard - If we leave the EU then British laws are made in Britain - If we leave the EU we can control our borders (i.e not have 320,000 net migration in per annum)
@ Fiiish What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
That is a really appalling statement. I strongly recommend you to take a holiday in the Alsace region and remind yourself when you are there (watching the Germans cross the river for lunch, while the French cross the river to go to work) that you are standing in 'the killing fields'. What happened in Alsace twice in the last century was a key driver of the initial agreement. Can you imagine France and Germany going to war in your lifetime now?
Then there is my home for the last 22 years. Three years earlier there were nuclear missiles here pointing at London, and nuclear missiles in Lincolnshire pointing at Prague. That, again, is history. But I'm only still here because of the EU which has whipped the country into something like a functioning civil democracy and puts a brake on the authoritarian tendencies of the old guard of politicians.
The EU had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, and most historians would agree that the Soviet Union providing a mutual foe and the rise of a united West/NATO was a much greater factor for the peace between those who are now EU member states than the EU itself. The EU was a natural consequence of European peace, not the other way around.
Not really sure the hyperbole of 'really appalling' is necessary. Just because you live in Europe doesn't give you a pedestal to lecture others on European peace.
The origin of the EU was not formed to combat the Soviet threat. It was formed to prevent a third European war based on extreme nationalism which had kicked off the previous two.
However the EU was certainly an aspiration for the most educated and most brave of the citizens of totalitarian Communist states.
I've been able to observe on the spot a country which has dragged itself away from the Soviet oppressor, been through the accession process and is now a safe and prosperous country which broadly seeks to behave in the same civilised way as the UK does. If you want an example of a European country where you cannot say that, try Serbia. And even they are working on it. If both Croatia and Serbia are in the EU that would be quite something if you look back on recent history. EU membership- or more accurately the process of accession - enables reasonable civilised people in a previously traumatised country to prevail over the authoritarian, the extremist, and the nutters.
So yes I thought it was really appalling because you casually tossed in as a statement of fact a travesty of history, which is an offence to all those in Europe in the 1950s who said "never again".
The apparent examples of Norway and Switzerland are going to come up. I know a lot less about Switzerland than i do Norway, so I'll confine myself to the latter. One of my best mates lives there and he is Swedish, CEO of a mid size international company, and a lot more right wing than me so he has an interesting perspective to offer.
For now, these are the things I believe everyone should bear in mind about Norway
- because they didn't piss away their share of the North Sea oil and gas, they have this massive sovereign wealth fund which has secured the pensions of the next two generations. They are a bit like the rich man who doesn't really have to work but does it to keep his brain active.
- It has a visceral fear of being "ruled" by anyone since they had quite enough of that from the Swedes and Danes in the past.
- in the last referendum in 1992, the Oslo area voted to join the EU. It was the country areas that voted no. And my word, those areas can be a little odd.
- the specific EU policy that they fear conforming to is on fishing.
- they are - get this - contributors to the EU budget yet they have no say in how their money is spent
- get this also - they are members of the Schengen agreement. Their borders are more open than ours.
- finally if you think leaving the EU will reduce bureaucracy and State interference, go have a beer in Oslo with my buddy (and hope he is paying). He will have some stories for you..
I recently been to Norway and if you find out their history, they already suffered being ruled by Denmark and they certainly do not want to be part of a ever growing union that is already suffering.
They also have a thriving fishing industry because they are not being ruled by the fisheries committee of the EU.
I bet Norway don't pay as much as the UK or any other EU country does.
Are you saying if we left the EU we still won't be able to control our borders? The European free act of movement comes to it which is a EU agreement.
I was amazed to find that Norway still has famous companies doing business successfully.
Recently, I found out the top 5 happy Countries and to no suprise Norway and Switzerland were amougst the top 5.
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
Look at Yougoslavia when they created its small Union early 1900's, did not turn out a peaceful Union in the end. You should also see how welcome the Greeks were when Angela Merkel landed on their shores..........
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
It was a consequence of that peace in as much the protagonists realised that a way that peace could be maintained and grudges forgotten would be to forge close ties cemented by trade and alignment of ideas.
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
Look at Yougoslavia when they created its small Union early 90's, did not turn out a peaceful Union in the end. You should also see how welcome the Greeks were when Angela Merkel landed on their shores..........
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
It was a consequence of that peace in as much the protagonists realised that a way that peace could be maintained and grudges forgotten would be to forge close ties cemented by trade and alignment of ideas.
Pretty much what I was saying. Germany and France weren't thinking 'Oh God, we better form a political and economic union because we're otherwise incapable of murdering each other' despite the delusions of those who think this is the case.
If Cameron negotiates a big deal, it would have to be a Treaty or similar. Anything that changes the EU would have to be ratified by referendum in Ireland (automatically triggered)
Previously Denmark, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have held referendums for treaties. I'm not sure what the trigger points are for these countries, if any.
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
Look at Yougoslavia when they created its small Union early 1900's, did not turn out a peaceful Union in the end. You should also see how welcome the Greeks were when Angela Merkel landed on their shores..........
Yugoslavia broke up in the 90s, as former Communist politicians, mainly in Serbia and Croatia, played on nationalism. That nationalism led to war, which was in part triggered by Germany being keen to accelerate the break up of Yugoslavia. Given that two ex Yugoslav states are now in the EU and the rest aspire to be, are you making the point that they shouldn't have been in a federal kingdom/republic to start with?
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
It was a consequence of that peace in as much the protagonists realised that a way that peace could be maintained and grudges forgotten would be to forge close ties cemented by trade and alignment of ideas.
Pretty much what I was saying. Germany and France weren't thinking 'Oh God, we better form a political and economic union because we're otherwise incapable of murdering each other' despite the delusions of those who think this is the case.
What you actually wrote was:
What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
You suggest, without a shred of evidence, that there would have been peace naturally and the EU threatened it.
I suppose you'll get out of it by starting to make a distinction between the old EEC and the modern EU....
It really isn't an offence to those people and don't you dare pretend you speak for anyone apart from yourself. You're completely misreading what I posted. My view is that the formation of the EU was a consequence of the peace that followed World War 2 and the Cold War, rather than the cause thereof.
Coming soon to a Charlton internet fans forum, "General Election thread 2: should Britain leave the EU"
From the cast that brought you the thread that won the most flags for abuse, the epic drawn out political leanings, starring Chizz, Fiiish, red in se8 (or 7, I can't remember), shooters hill guru, Bournemouth Addick.
The first time was political, this time it's personal. You thought you could go back to your safe civilian lives, indulging in rumours, rumours the big Khauna, or general things that annoy you, but the stars of the big screen (that's the Internet forum screen) are back for one final showdown
Quite a few people attribute the EU to helping destabilise regions, such as Ukraine, or at least not being more active in stopping violence, so 'in spite of' is appropriate.
Oh, and guess what, there was peace without the EU naturally and the EU was a consequence of that peace, as SHG helpfully pointed out.
Quite a few people attribute the EU to helping destabilise regions, such as Ukraine, or at least not being more active in stopping violence, so 'in spite of' is appropriate.
Oh, and guess what, there was peace without the EU naturally and the EU was a consequence of that peace, as SHG helpfully pointed out.
I think the EU, or at least the big players in it, have played this role at times - Yugoslavia and UKraine are both fair examples. But the "in spite of" comment can only really work if that is what they are consistently doing and I don't see it. Prague has mentioned the work in former Czechoslovakia, where there was no conflict escalation. Likewise, the EU tried to get a solution to the division of Cyprus, but the Greek Cypriots were not interested. I'm fairly sure there are other exmaples out there and with ex-Yugoslavia, the countries there now all want to join (with everything that comes with it).
If you expect the EU to play some sort of strategic role, they are going to end up being associated with destabilisation at times.
Comments
You can damn the statistics but they are raw statistics that you can at least test. You cannot test the pro EU mantra that "we will be worse off" without al least acknowledging there might be some pros.
I've seen nothing from the pro EU camp even acknowledging there might be some positives to consider.
Unfortunately if we want to limit the population, we have to start at home - that means encouraging unskilled workers to leave the country as well as taking measures to discourage people already here from having larger families, at least until we're educating enough natives to a high enough level to sustain the professional economy.
Especially when recent studies have shown immigrants are net contributors to the economy, being younger, more highly skilled and more dynamic (in general).
Of course we could trade with the EU if we left but would multinationals wish to locate here, outside of the EU? Will banks and car manufacturers choose mainland Europe?
But I think the most important point mentioned is financial services regulation. It was clearly defective before the 2007-09 crash and needs addressing. One party in government in the UK is not going to have the independence from vested interests nor the bigger picture to deliver anything close to effective for this century.
I think we have to ask ourselves who is funding UKIP and what is their agenda.
As for whether we should have a referendum, well it's here now and I think it should be run asap. A year will be plenty of time to air the issues. And Cameron won't need longer to negotiate changes since they will either be on the table or not! I simply cannot see major treaty changes since the Euro nations do not have appetite right now.
But bigger, richer countries may carve out an understanding on health and benefits to dampen the efforts of the far right anti EU brigade in every country.
So, yes we should stay in and stay as a UK with Scotland to make our way in a global economy AND influence the European political and business environment.
What people don't seem to grasp is that the EU and now the Euro is part of the biggest peace project this planet has ever seen! For sure it needs to evolve and the Crash, Syria and IS plus the changes needed to keep The Euro on track should all keep reform at the top of the agenda.
Walking away from this would be like walking away from Uefa just as things get interesting.
On the general point, I can see pros and cons in the EU. What I would say is that the level of informed posters on here, on both sides, is refreshing. I hope it continues.
I don't mean to pick on you, but really you shouldn't just believe what you read from just one source/viewpoint, especially when quoting verifiable figures
Of course we could trade with the EU if we left but would multinationals wish to locate here, outside of the EU? Will banks and car manufacturers choose mainland Europe?
Businesses located here do so because of cost-effectiveness, the business environment and stability, all of which relate to domestic policy and not thanks to our membership of the EU. Thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, businesses will not be negatively affected if we were to leave the EU.
But I think the most important point mentioned is financial services regulation. It was clearly defective before the 2007-09 crash and needs addressing. One party in government in the UK is not going to have the independence from vested interests nor the bigger picture to deliver anything close to effective for this century.
Considering the EU dropped the ball with the crash and their response has been largely reactive rather than proactive in nature and seems to have caused more issues than it actually helped stop, I don't see this being a good argument to remain in the EU.
I think we have to ask ourselves who is funding UKIP and what is their agenda.
Mostly business owners, entrepreneurs and tycoons who want the UK to leave the EU. Quelle surprise. Their donations are dwarfed by those to Labour and the Tories though.
As for whether we should have a referendum, well it's here now and I think it should be run asap. A year will be plenty of time to air the issues. And Cameron won't need longer to negotiate changes since they will either be on the table or not! I simply cannot see major treaty changes since the Euro nations do not have appetite right now.
A lot of gossip amongst non-UK MEPs indicates that they are pretty afraid of the UK's referendum since it will shine a light on their shadowy practices and in the event the UK does vote to leave, it could be the first of many dominos signalling other nation's exiting. Most MEPs know that the UK has little to lose if it leaves thanks to the Lisbon Treaty and that the EU will be worse off without the UK, not the other way around.
But bigger, richer countries may carve out an understanding on health and benefits to dampen the efforts of the far right anti EU brigade in every country.
I'd hardly call the anti-EU brigade that's currently the governing party of Greece 'far right'.
So, yes we should stay in and stay as a UK with Scotland to make our way in a global economy AND influence the European political and business environment.
We are unable to make in-roads in growing economies such as China or India or to get a more tailored deal with the US on TTIP because the EU does all the negotiating. This has led to us losing business we could have otherwise won if we had been able to negotiate trade with their countries directly.
What people don't seem to grasp is that the EU and now the Euro is part of the biggest peace project this planet has ever seen! For sure it needs to evolve and the Crash, Syria and IS plus the changes needed to keep The Euro on track should all keep reform at the top of the agenda.
What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
That is a really appalling statement. I strongly recommend you to take a holiday in the Alsace region and remind yourself when you are there (watching the Germans cross the river for lunch, while the French cross the river to go to work) that you are standing in 'the killing fields'. What happened in Alsace twice in the last century was a key driver of the initial agreement. Can you imagine France and Germany going to war in your lifetime now?
Then there is my home for the last 22 years. Three years earlier there were nuclear missiles here pointing at London, and nuclear missiles in Lincolnshire pointing at Prague. That, again, is history. But I'm only still here because of the EU which has whipped the country into something like a functioning civil democracy and puts a brake on the authoritarian tendencies of the old guard of politicians.
Will all the big businesses really move to mainland Europe?
Will we still be able to trade favorably with our EU partners if we are outside, or will we be the Millwall of Europe?
Can we trade successfully as a small nation or should we remain part of a larger trading body to compete with the likes of the USA and China?
etc. etc...
He will also find that if you use GDP per head as the measure of economic health the British performance is even less impressive. But this is about the EU, not the euro so we better leave it there.
How would that situation be resolved? Would the no-voting England drag the rest of the UK out of Europe against its will? Would Scotland refuse to be pulled out of Europe and demand, enforce and win a snap exit referendum?
This would be a nightmare scenario in almost every respect.
Manchester is evolving rapidly and London, Scotland and Wales already have the framework in place.
Local accountable politicians of whatever hue should shape their locality and that in turn will create push and pull factors for locals and migrants alike.
@PragueAddick has addressed the inconsistencies above re. Europe. One only has to look at the middle East and Africa to see the strife arising where there is no central framework.
What I neglected to address is that alongside IS, the whole of Europe faces the common threats and challenges of aging demographics, tax evasion, huge increases in economic and political migration plus health cost inflation.
This is really a challenge for our children and our children's children but I think we should celebrate our common heritage with Europe in terms of politics, structures and culture.
Ps I think you will find that the hard left approach in Greece and now Spain is anti austerity and not anti EU! The problem is that EU macro economic policy has been dictated by Germany but that is shifting for they realise it's causing tensions. The whole of Europe is either stagnant or recovering slightly and a more adventurous approach at a time of near zero interest rates might win through...in the economy and the ballot box.
Not really sure the hyperbole of 'really appalling' is necessary. Just because you live in Europe doesn't give you a pedestal to lecture others on European peace.
For now, these are the things I believe everyone should bear in mind about Norway
- because they didn't piss away their share of the North Sea oil and gas, they have this massive sovereign wealth fund which has secured the pensions of the next two generations. They are a bit like the rich man who doesn't really have to work but does it to keep his brain active.
- It has a visceral fear of being "ruled" by anyone since they had quite enough of that from the Swedes and Danes in the past.
- in the last referendum in 1992, the Oslo area voted to join the EU. It was the country areas that voted no. And my word, those areas can be a little odd.
- the specific EU policy that they fear conforming to is on fishing.
- they are - get this - contributors to the EU budget yet they have no say in how their money is spent
- get this also - they are members of the Schengen agreement. Their borders are more open than ours.
- finally if you think leaving the EU will reduce bureaucracy and State interference, go have a beer in Oslo with my buddy (and hope he is paying). He will have some stories for you..
However the EU was certainly an aspiration for the most educated and most brave of the citizens of totalitarian Communist states.
I've been able to observe on the spot a country which has dragged itself away from the Soviet oppressor, been through the accession process and is now a safe and prosperous country which broadly seeks to behave in the same civilised way as the UK does. If you want an example of a European country where you cannot say that, try Serbia. And even they are working on it. If both Croatia and Serbia are in the EU that would be quite something if you look back on recent history. EU membership- or more accurately the process of accession - enables reasonable civilised people in a previously traumatised country to prevail over the authoritarian, the extremist, and the nutters.
So yes I thought it was really appalling because you casually tossed in as a statement of fact a travesty of history, which is an offence to all those in Europe in the 1950s who said "never again".
They also have a thriving fishing industry because they are not being ruled by the fisheries committee of the EU.
I bet Norway don't pay as much as the UK or any other EU country does.
Are you saying if we left the EU we still won't be able to control our borders? The European free act of movement comes to it which is a EU agreement.
I was amazed to find that Norway still has famous companies doing business successfully.
Recently, I found out the top 5 happy Countries and to no suprise Norway and Switzerland were amougst the top 5.
Previously Denmark, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have held referendums for treaties. I'm not sure what the trigger points are for these countries, if any.
Yugoslavia broke up in the 90s, as former Communist politicians, mainly in Serbia and Croatia, played on nationalism. That nationalism led to war, which was in part triggered by Germany being keen to accelerate the break up of Yugoslavia. Given that two ex Yugoslav states are now in the EU and the rest aspire to be, are you making the point that they shouldn't have been in a federal kingdom/republic to start with?
What people tend to forget is that peace between the EU member states has occurred in spite of, not because of the EU.
You suggest, without a shred of evidence, that there would have been peace naturally and the EU threatened it.
I suppose you'll get out of it by starting to make a distinction between the old EEC and the modern EU....
From the cast that brought you the thread that won the most flags for abuse, the epic drawn out political leanings, starring Chizz, Fiiish, red in se8 (or 7, I can't remember), shooters hill guru, Bournemouth Addick.
The first time was political, this time it's personal. You thought you could go back to your safe civilian lives, indulging in rumours, rumours the big Khauna, or general things that annoy you, but the stars of the big screen (that's the Internet forum screen) are back for one final showdown
Oh, and guess what, there was peace without the EU naturally and the EU was a consequence of that peace, as SHG helpfully pointed out.
If you expect the EU to play some sort of strategic role, they are going to end up being associated with destabilisation at times.