Some of the anti-immigration perspectives sound so parochial that they will put off people who would otherwise be inclined towards a No vote for other reasons.
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)
I have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
#ridiculouslogic
They may take months or more probably years, if at all - what are you going to do while you don't have them ?
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)
I have yet to be convinced of any of the 'yes' arguments, mainly because there are so few.
The reasons to leave seem to overwhelm any reason to stay
Yes, we MAY be able to negotiate new trade agreements BUT how long will they take and on what terms ? I would suggest that as we are smaller than the EU they will take a long time to negotiate and be on worse terms. Plus, every new trade agreement with a new country means MORE/different red tape.
That's 3 of your 5 reasons gone - time for a rethink ?
Trade agreements may take more than 5 seconds to put in place - better stay in an undemocratic unaccountable political union then.
#ridiculouslogic
Ridiculous logic - delicious irony.
@cafcnick1992 "Undemocratic and unaccountable". A wholly incorrect allegation.
As has already been mentioned, the European Commission, for example, is subject to the strictest of audit regimes - far stricter than the UK Govt has to cope with. So there goes the "unaccountable" aspect from the purely monetary point of view.
As for political accountability and democracy, well:
There are three main EU bodies:
The European Parliament which is entirely democratic and is elected by EU citizens; (I wonder how many of us know who our MEPs are or how many we get in each region?) The Council of the European Union which represents the Governments of the individual member states with the Presidency of the Council shared on a rotated basis among member countries. Each democratically elected Government sends its relevant ministers to represent its interests at Council; and the aforementioned European Commission which is fully accountable for its actions. It has 28 commissioners, one for each country with the local democratically elected Governments nominating their representative. (Ours is Jonathan Hill who is The Commissioner for Financial Stability Financial Services and Capital Markets Union). Each Commissioner's appointment, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. In office, they remain strictly accountable to The European Parliament, which has sole power to dismiss the Commission. In addition, The European Parliament votes on whether to approve the accounts and makes recommendations on how to improve the management of the budget of the Commission and the Commission must act on any recommendations the Parliament makes.
So, in summary, I'm not quite sure how much more democratic and accountable you think the EU could be.
Would we get our coastal exclusion zone/fishing industry back if we left, or has that (sea)horse bolted? (I realise that I ought to read up on these issues but can't be arsed am presently otherwise engaged
Prague, as far as I know there is no impediment to this country imposing restrictions to migration from non EU states if that's what you want to do. However my understanding is that is not permitted in relation to migration from EU states. So what he was suggesting was that a substantial part of the 300,000 or so that can't now be controlled, could be if we left. Which sounds like a fair enough argument to me.
Whether or not you want to reduce immigration was not his point as I read it. It was about where border control should lie. In other words about sovereignty.
he gave 320,000 net migration a year as a reason to vote "no". Nothing else. I asked him to tell us what proportion of that 320,000 is non-EU. He hasn't told us. I then pointed out that EU migrants are more likely to easily assimilate and to go home again after a few years. So we could leave the EU and still be faced with highly problematic immigration. And we have the ability to deal with that highly problematic immigration from outside the EU regardless of whether we are in the EU.
It is important to take sweeping statements and casual use of stats and interrogate them a bit, in order to really get to grips with the issues, wouldn't you agree?
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
Prague, as far as I know there is no impediment to this country imposing restrictions to migration from non EU states if that's what you want to do. However my understanding is that is not permitted in relation to migration from EU states. So what he was suggesting was that a substantial part of the 300,000 or so that can't now be controlled, could be if we left. Which sounds like a fair enough argument to me.
Whether or not you want to reduce immigration was not his point as I read it. It was about where border control should lie. In other words about sovereignty.
he gave 320,000 net migration a year as a reason to vote "no". Nothing else. I asked him to tell us what proportion of that 320,000 is non-EU. He hasn't told us. I then pointed out that EU migrants are more likely to easily assimilate and to go home again after a few years. So we could leave the EU and still be faced with highly problematic immigration. And we have the ability to deal with that highly problematic immigration from outside the EU regardless of whether we are in the EU.
It is important to take sweeping statements and casual use of stats and interrogate them a bit, in order to really get to grips with the issues, wouldn't you agree?
Yes. How many of the 320,000 are non EU exactly? That would be a good place to start on this aspect.
I think the split is roughly down the middle. But the comparison ends there. Immigrants from Poland and the other nine countries that joined the EU in 2004 have contributed almost £5 billion more to the UK’s economy than they used in benefits and public services.
Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EU arrivals.
Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.
But native Britons also received more than they contributed in the same 17-year period – amounting to a cost of £591 billion as the national deficit grew - and European arrivals gave a £4.4 billion boost.
The report said the gulf between arrivals from inside and outside of the EU could partly be explained by the large number of children had by non-EU immigrants, as the cost of their education was counted but as the children were UK-born, their subsequent tax contributions were not factored into the report.
Migrants who arrived since 2000 were 43 per cent less likely than UK-born workers to receive state benefits or tax
I'm not saying there are not problems IMO with some Romanian/Bulgarian immigrants (some) and if Turkey joined the EU it would be problematic. But there are things the Bristish government can do to change the benefits system with a little immagination that could solve these small issues.
There might be a debate to be had on this in due course but for my money, "I think the split is roughly down the middle" does nothing for "taking sweeping statements and the casual use of stats and interrogating them a bit" (Prague's words). I'm not seeking confrontation, just saying.
Your defence of EU immigration is unambiguous, Muttley. What you say is that it is a good thing and I take your view to be that it should be encouraged and no restriction at all is desirable, due to the economic effects. You say non EU immigration is not necessarily so good and has negative economic impact. You seem to imply it should be restricted but as our ability to do that is not affected by membership of the EU it s not therefore relevant to the referendum debate.
That's how it reads. I suspect however your view on non EU migration is more liberal than that.
Anyway debate on this aspect should ideally be based on some reliable stats, I feel.
Reckon this is all premature and I think I may give this thread a swerve for a year or so!
For me the issue goes right to the heart of what is wrong with us as a country. We have too many little Britishers who have this longing to go back to a past that no longer exists in today's global system. I have a longing to return to this too if I am honest, but am realistic to know it is impossible.
To compete in the global economy, we need the strength that Europe gives us. It allows us access to European markets which attracts business. The people who want to leave say, well we will lose markets, but will just find new ones. I say, find them now and leave Europe when you have found them!
The other problem doesn't reflect well on Europe but has to be considered. UKIP kept going on about remaining friendly trading partners with Europe in the last election. This was an admission how important trade with Europe is to this country, but do they honestly believe that Europe would allow that? To ensure that no other member states leave, they would do their best to bugger us up. With Greece, Europe would like to bail them out for the stability it would bring, but if they bail them out, they would have to bail other countries out in future. Europe would make an example of us make no mistake.
It would be an error of epic proportions if we left, but we won't. Most of the British people are not the brightest and are too easily influenced by the press, but the press, and a large part of the conservative and labour parties will be fully behind staying in Europe which will win the day convincingly. It is really a stupid vote to have. It only destabilises and was done to appease the right in the Tory party. All this linking it with getting an improved deal was stupid too. We should be trying to do this in the background, but not announce it as any deal Cameron gets will not be enough for the anti EU ers.
Muttley, at the moment Europe is holding us back because of the current Euro crises, especially from the mediterranean. The exchange rate between the Euro and Pound has been the highest for a long time.
I doubt Europe will stop trade with us if we leave. Do you honestly think the massive European companies will be forced to pull out of the UK only because we left the EU? Europe's economy would be in a right state because they sell us far more than we sell them so it would be Europe that would lose out more than we do.
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
I don't "ignore" it. I gave you due credit a while back for your (and Covered End's) determined attempt to make me think about it. So for Christ sake when someone says fair enough, you've got a point, take the compliment and move on, and don't keep throwing out the same old shit. We've got to keep this thread going for two years remember.
It is not political posturing you are referring to. They are ill-judged remarks from relatively inexperienced politicians, but if you have an ounce of empathy in your body, you might at least understand that these people are seriously offended by the remarks coming from UK politicians. They take it personally, and you might too if you were in their shoes.
There might be a debate to be had on this in due course but for my money, "I think the split is roughly down the middle" does nothing for "taking sweeping statements and the casual use of stats and interrogating them a bit" (Prague's words). I'm not seeking confrontation, just saying.
Your defence of EU immigration is unambiguous, Muttley. What you say is that it is a good thing and I take your view to be that it should be encouraged and no restriction at all is desirable, due to the economic effects. You say non EU immigration is not necessarily so good and has negative economic impact. You seem to imply it should be restricted but as our ability to do that is not affected by membership of the EU it s not therefore relevant to the referendum debate.
That's how it reads. I suspect however your view on non EU migration is more liberal than that.
Anyway debate on this aspect should ideally be based on some reliable stats, I feel.
Reckon this is all premature and I think I may give this thread a swerve for a year or so!
I didn't imply anything, I made a point about misconceptions about EU immigration. You could equally say I was making a point that British people should migrate abroad, which I wasn't. And you are welcome to spend some time researching the figures for yourself rather than relying on the comments of posters on here. What you and most people during the election make the mistake of doing is wanting exact numbers. I could look them up and give them to you reasonably quickly, the same as you can do this yourself. But the numbers change year by year - EU immigration can go up and non EU immigration can go down and visa versa - migration from this country can go up and down. Sometimes saying the split is about half and half is less misleading than quoting a snapshot figure taken from a particular point in time. We can't as football fans, not statisticians or politicians know every detail at every point in time, but as citizens we should attempt to acquaint ourselves with a basic understanding of what is going on around us.
During an election debate, Ed Miliband was asked by a member of the public why the Australian economy did so much better and was less effected by the crash than we were. Miliband explained in simple terms the truth - that the Australian economy was less reliant of the financial services sector. He did not need to give detailed figures, his explanation was all that was required, but the narrow minded questioner took by the fact he didn't that he was being evasive. My hope is that people, rather than demanding detailed facts from people open their minds and research for themselves. After they believe they have found the true facts, not headlines from certain quarters with their own agendas, they can decide where they stand and their opinion should be respected, whether it agrees with yours or not.
Many untruths have been told in recent weeks and scaremongering about problems that are not as big as people were led to believe was up there with the best of them. Make people angry and think they are being dealt an injustice and you have them.
The problem with the immigration debate is you get the left wing loonies claim those who are fed up with too many coming in to the UK to be racist. We basically had an open door since 2004 due to the freedom of movement and Labour's search party and their pledge 'come on down' to outside the EU certainly did not help ethier.
Under immigration laws, we discriminating against a highly skilled doctor from India in favour of a un-skilled worker from Romania and due to this freedom of movement we can not stop any EU citizen from entering the UK. This means anyone who is a convicted criminal can enter the UK anytime!
I want us to go back when we had immigration controls in the 90's when we had less than 50,000 migrants entering the UK and they bring a great contribution to this Country. We have to leave the EU or the EU finally gives in on freedom of movement for us to achieve this. Australia and Canada have it spot on with immigration controls but we will not have the same control as they do I am afraid.
There might be a debate to be had on this in due course but for my money, "I think the split is roughly down the middle" does nothing for "taking sweeping statements and the casual use of stats and interrogating them a bit" (Prague's words). I'm not seeking confrontation, just saying.
Not sure why it's the duty of Prague or Muttley to provide further information on someone else's statistic, but here goes.
"Of the 178,000 net migration from the EU, 82,000 were estimated to come from the EU15 [France, Germany, etc] and 48,000 from the A8 [Poland, Latvia, etc]. The data shows that in the year ending December 2014 an estimated 46,000 citizens of Romania and Bulgaria migrated to the UK while 4,000 left."
The parts in italics were added by me.
I would expect that immigration from Ireland, for which a separate free movement agreement exists, constitutes a disproportionately large part of the figure for the EU15.
61% of the net immigration is from outside the EU, using MigrationWatch figures, and 53% of the EU immigration is from "new" members (who joined since 2000). MigrationWatch are, in my understanding, an organisation who would like to restrict immigration.
The 60%/40% split between non-EU and EU migrants is backed up by a Parliament report, but its figures are up to 2011. It also backs up that the biggest proportion of EU immigration is from the EU15, which would normally be considered wealthy countries.
For my part, I've always felt the debate about immigration was wrongheaded. Leaving aside the fact that immigrants travel to the UK because they believe there are more jobs available and the economy is doing well, the real issue with immigration is where they choose to go. Obviously, if all the major investment in the country is in the south east, then that's where the jobs are and that's where people choose to go. If, instead, the investment was elsewhere, other locations could be more attractive. An independent Scotland would have needed significant immigration in order to deal with its ageing population. It also has a lot of space for a growing population, without building over Loch Lomond. If the government focused investment on Scotland, Wales and the north of England, it could make those regions more attractive for new immigrants and for people living in the south east.
That does mean that London would have to subsidise investment in the rest of the country, but if you want to reduce overcrowding in the south east, then that's the way to do it. You can't seriously expect all the major investment to be in the London area but also moan that people want to live where the best infrastructure and jobs are.
I don't think people who are fed up with too many immigrants are racist. Anything that can damage the country should be rightfully feared. I have said on this thread that I fear some immigration from the Eastern block (not most) where massively different cultures can cause problems. I also fear the consequences if Turkey joined the EU in terms of the influx of ultra cheap labour. I may be accused of being racist and I may be wrong, but I have those fears. But I won't ignore the truths and every major study says that net immigration makes a positive contribution to this country. And this is thanks to EU immigration, including the Eastern block. And my search for the truth may make me revise my views as they are now.
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
We've got to keep this thread going for two years remember.
To be honest, I'm going to really struggle as I don't know what's going to be best for my kids.
Stay in or leave is not going to make much difference to me. Nowadays Europe is just a great big playground for me.
Listened to BBC Hardtalk interview with Guy Verhadstadt Head of Liberals and Democrats for Europe arguing the case for UK staying in the EU. If this represents the best arguments that can be made, I am even clearer on my position.
No one disagrees that UK would be worse off by withdrawing from the EU and losing the benefit of the internal market. Our government already has a report which confirms this with input from our main trading partners including Japan, all of whom categorically say UK should remain within the internal market. Also, every other EU partner would worse off, Germany to the tune of 50bn Euro, 300bn for UK.
Challenge from interviewer - Why could UK not have the benefit of the internal trading arrangements by striking the same bargain as do Switzerland, Channel Isands etc. Response - It could, but that is the same as a two tier EU membership. The ONLY downside he articulated is loss of influence within EU for policy decisions. In contradiction of this, I sense some pro EU supporters are defending the EU by saying there are no big political decisions that affect the UK that we need to worry about.
The Yes campaign has a weak case, which comes down to little more than supporting political union. Our trading partners outside the EU, whose views we can assume are objective, are not concerned with the UK being part of a political union, only an internal trading arrangement. The point of common agreement, which can put to bed the economic argument once and for all, is that the UK MUST maintain trade agreements as currently exist. As every other EU partner would suffer financially if agreement was not reached,, what reason is there to believe it would not happen? The Yes campaign has to prove a case that we would fail to replace the internal trade arrangements to get my vote.
On immigration, the UK needs immigration, if not, our ageing population will soon outnumber the actively working population and undermine the balance essential to maintain the economic activity to support the non working population. This logic probably sat behind the Labour government's laissez faire attitude in the 1990s.
The concerns of everyday working people is, and always has been, only about control. Control of the pace of immigration and control of selection based on skills the immigrants import. Despite those who seem to claim we are rich enough to act as an international health and welfare support service, we are struggling to met the needs of our existing population, and don't have a money tree orchard.
The fact is that we will only have control over our immigration policy outside the EU. Within the EU it will only come about by a change to the EU treaty, and that has been ruled out.
For me it's game set and match, we should exit the EU unless there is a treaty change that separated economic from political union.
Not sure if it helps the debate but although Switzerland is not part of the EU it has negotiated trade arrangements which include membership of Schengen and free movement of people.
"Switzerland and Australia, with about a quarter of their population born outside the country, are the two countries with the highest proportion of immigrants in the western world." (Admittedly I copied that from Wikipedia!).
About a year ago the Swiss had a referendum and narrowly agreed to abandon the existing trade deal with the EU because of fears about immigration. However, the alternative arrangements negotiated by their government were recently overwhelmingly rejected in another referendum. So Switzerland remains part of Schengen and basically does what it is told by the EU.
I don't believe this sort of model would suit the UK.
The EU ? .. NO .. the EEC ..YES ... I have written here before umpteen times that the EU is Germany and it's bride France getting what they have wanted for centuries through political and economic power what they have failed to get by force of arms .. control of continental Europe .. remember Hitler, remember Napoleon y'all and draw back from letting the poseurs and Prussians control us English folk .. we'll buy from and sell to them but political control and monetary union ? .. non, nein, no .. not on your nelly
Listened to BBC Hardtalk interview with Guy Verhadstadt Head of Liberals and Democrats for Europe arguing the case for UK staying in the EU. If this represents the best arguments that can be made, I am even clearer on my position.
No one disagrees that UK would be worse off by withdrawing from the EU and losing the benefit of the internal market. Our government already has a report which confirms this with input from our main trading partners including Japan, all of whom categorically say UK should remain within the internal market. Also, every other EU partner would worse off, Germany to the tune of 50bn Euro, 300bn for UK.
Challenge from interviewer - Why could UK not have the benefit of the internal trading arrangements by striking the same bargain as do Switzerland, Channel Isands etc. Response - It could, but that is the same as a two tier EU membership. The ONLY downside he articulated is loss of influence within EU for policy decisions. In contradiction of this, I sense some pro EU supporters are defending the EU by saying there are no big political decisions that affect the UK that we need to worry about.
The Yes campaign has a weak case, which comes down to little more than supporting political union. Our trading partners outside the EU, whose views we can assume are objective, are not concerned with the UK being part of a political union, only an internal trading arrangement. The point of common agreement, which can put to bed the economic argument once and for all, is that the UK MUST maintain trade agreements as currently exist. As every other EU partner would suffer financially if agreement was not reached,, what reason is there to believe it would not happen? The Yes campaign has to prove a case that we would fail to replace the internal trade arrangements to get my vote.
On immigration, the UK needs immigration, if not, our ageing population will soon outnumber the actively working population and undermine the balance essential to maintain the economic activity to support the non working population. This logic probably sat behind the Labour government's laissez faire attitude in the 1990s.
The concerns of everyday working people is, and always has been, only about control. Control of the pace of immigration and control of selection based on skills the immigrants import. Despite those who seem to claim we are rich enough to act as an international health and welfare support service, we are struggling to met the needs of our existing population, and don't have a money tree orchard.
The fact is that we will only have control over our immigration policy outside the EU. Within the EU it will only come about by a change to the EU treaty, and that has been ruled out.
For me it's game set and match, we should exit the EU unless there is a treaty change that separated economic from political union.
You have made a lot of posts on this thread, and this seems to be the first one to feature an actual reason to leave the EU (immigration control). It has already been stated that 60% of total net immigration comes from outside the EU, and there is nothing preventing the UK changing the rules on any of that.
Apart from the above, from what I can see, your thesis appears to be that China and India are growing economic powers who have or will overtake the EU, and many businesses in the UK are small. There was also a disagreement between you and cafcfan (who seems to have worked on it) on the EU's approach to banking regulation.
What are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK over the past 3 years? What would be the real-life negative consequences of the UK voting to stay in the EU?
What would be the real-life positive consequences of the UK voting to leave the EU?
What are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK over the past 3 years? Not the last three years but look what has happened to our fishing industry. The way the EU reaches decisions is by way of trading competing interests. We were allowed to join the EEC only by giving up sovereignty of our fishing grounds. It's about control again. Our fishing grounds were immediately raped by Spanish trawlers ignoring quotas that we, as honest Brits kept to. With restricted quotas and insane rules that meant destroying fish catches instead of landing them as food, our fishermen lost their livelihoods and sold their UK rights to the Spanish and French to make the elimination of our fish stocks even more rapid. The result has been the elimination of our cod and herring stocks. Entirely down to EU membership and our inability to make our own laws to protect our fish stocks and industry. Scandinavia, outside the EU, has a sustainable fishing industry.
All EU decisions are inevitably a compromise, you give me this and I'll give you that, or no deal. The more member States there are, the less any single decision optimises the outcome in the interests for each individual nation. That process is a bad decision making process in terms of leading to the most favourable outcomes for any one nation. It is acceptable only if you think the vision of political union and sharing resources in an equitable way is possible. You can justify voting Yes if you do, and No if you don't. I can recognise the benefits of sharing resources, I just don't trust the system to do it fairly and I don't see how the powerful will not still dominate the agenda of their own ends. France did it for years on the common agricultural policy.
What would be the real-life negative consequences of the UK voting to stay in the EU? Continuing growth of the EU beyond a credible number of manageable nations. It started off as six States able to achieve, in theory, economic convergence as a political and economic union. The example of Greece show how the system cannot work with a wide disparity of economic characteristics and attitudes to fiscal control. So, much as I would like to acknowledge it, I cannot see the ideal of a united States of Europe being an achievable success. Too much reliance is on making an ideal vision a reality, than the reality of what is achievable.
What would be the real-life positive consequences of the UK voting to leave the EU? Giving our voters greater political control over domestic policy. Reducing a layer of politics that affects our lives. Whether that is positive depends on how the UK exercises control and what voters vote for. It will probably have an impact on how we approach the move for devolution within our country. Being outside the EU rather than within it will arguably give us space to do what we decide without external pressures distorting the design to avoid conflict with EU process.
"What would be the real-life positive consequences of the UK voting to leave the EU? Giving our voters greater political control over domestic policy. Reducing a layer of politics that affects our lives."
OK let me try on you a question I have tried to pose here before, as well as in English pubs.
Think about the three things which currently bother you most about your own current life in the UK, and which could reasonably be resolved via the political process. (so, probably not the personal behaviour of family members or friends, but for example the state of the NHS, or South Eastern trains (two which head the list of my sister in Eltham)). Please list them.
Then comes part 2… if you'd be so kind
BTW Norway is not part of the EU, but the rest of "Scandinavia" is. And all three of those other countries have coastal fishing fleets. See also my earlier notes on Norway.
Thanks for the answers, Dippenhall. 'Control' seems to be your main argument in favour of leaving the EU. There was a reason why I used the phrase "real-life" in my questions. 'Control' is an intangible. It doesn't affect my life in and of itself whether decisions are made by out of touch politicians in Westminster or out of touch faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What matters to me are the decisions themselves, and whether they're good or bad.
Trade agreements are a compromise, and the UK would have to start negotiations on a whole host of trade agreements immediately after voting to leave the EU, both with the EU itself and with other countries. Many of those other countries are, as you say, growing in economic power and may not feel they have to compromise so much with the UK as they would have to with the EU.
As far as I see it, if there are priorities on political union, they're within the Eurozone rather than within the EU as a whole. And progress is slow on that (if there is any). The UK can remain outside these issues while remaining in the EU.
As regards devolution, some of the EU states have central government and some are federalised. Apart from one map which showed regions of each country based on geographical factors for the purpose of statistical gathering, there is no indication that the EU has any opinion on how the UK chooses to align itself. If it has any concerns, they would only be about the likelihood of a UK breakup.
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
I don't "ignore" it. I gave you due credit a while back for your (and Covered End's) determined attempt to make me think about it. So for Christ sake when someone says fair enough, you've got a point, take the compliment and move on, and don't keep throwing out the same old shit. We've got to keep this thread going for two years remember.
It is not political posturing you are referring to. They are ill-judged remarks from relatively inexperienced politicians, but if you have an ounce of empathy in your body, you might at least understand that these people are seriously offended by the remarks coming from UK politicians. They take it personally, and you might too if you were in their shoes.
No - you've acknowledged it, but still continue to ignore it as a reasonable answer to one of the three questions you are asking of Dippenhall.
And now the Polish PM is 'inexperienced' at the Czech EU Minister, who you kept reminding us saw a way round the immigration/benefits issue beore the election is now making 'ill-judged' remarks.
And to be quite honest, I don't give a tinkers cuss that they're 'offended' by our elected politicians.
Think about the three things which currently bother you most about your own current life in the UK, and which could reasonably be resolved via the political process.
1. The housing shortage and housing policy - nothing to do with the EU 2. 30 years of political decisions of both the UK and the EU which has destroyed the viability of employer sponsored pensions - partly to do with the EU 3. People looking to the State instead of themselves to sort out their problems. - partly to do with the EU
Not everything needs to be about the economy. As a member of conservation groups and a fisherman, I regret the fact that fish are unseen and not noticed until they disappear. I used to visit Cornwall and unlike in the 1960s when there were fishing boats and fisherman to give colour and character to the region, it is now a sad shadow of what it was. No boats, no fish, no fishermen and a way of life destroyed. Why does Thatcher destroying the way of life of miners carry such bitter memories yet the EU agreement destroying a fishing industry is no part of folklore? The coal is still there, the fish have gone but no one notices apart from fishermen.
I do not fail to recognise that we would have to pay for some trade arrangements. I am not a believer in free lunches out there as many in this country seem to think. However, I would prefer to pay cash and optimise use of our own talents and resources than go round the houses paying in EU luncheon vouchers financed by a mis-matched contribution from our resources and audited according to the FIFA book of accounting conventions.
Nor am I denying a relationship with the EU is not necessary, it simply does not have to be full blown political union.
The problem is that anyone not pro EU is characterised by a frequent Nick Clegg statement as "wanting to pull up the drawbridge ban migration and become an inward looking nation". That smacks of a need to fabricate the opponents case to project the only argument that can easily be countered.
I support in theory the policy of renegotiation with the EU, but accept the reality that it is a pipe dream.
No control of inward EU immigration is a massive problem though Prague - yet you continue to ignore it.
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
I don't "ignore" it. I gave you due credit a while back for your (and Covered End's) determined attempt to make me think about it. So for Christ sake when someone says fair enough, you've got a point, take the compliment and move on, and don't keep throwing out the same old shit. We've got to keep this thread going for two years remember.
It is not political posturing you are referring to. They are ill-judged remarks from relatively inexperienced politicians, but if you have an ounce of empathy in your body, you might at least understand that these people are seriously offended by the remarks coming from UK politicians. They take it personally, and you might too if you were in their shoes.
No - you've acknowledged it, but still continue to ignore it as a reasonable answer to one of the three questions you are asking of Dippenhall.
And now the Polish PM is 'inexperienced' at the Czech EU Minister, who you kept reminding us saw a way round the immigration/benefits issue beore the election is now making 'ill-judged' remarks.
And to be quite honest, I don't give a tinkers cuss that they're 'offended' by our elected politicians.
You are actually referring to Radek Sikorski, who at the time was the Polish Foreign Minister and who indeed offered very sensible advice in perfect English on the Andrew Marr show. It was that we can very easily bring our benefits in line with those of other EU countries such as Poland, so that the UK doesn't seem like a gold mine for scroungers, and you don't have to leave the EU to do that. It's about the 4th time I've mentioned it here and I didn't want to bore more rational Lifers with the same point so often.
As for your last sentence, well no, I'm sure you don't .
Comments
@cafcnick1992 "Undemocratic and unaccountable". A wholly incorrect allegation.
As has already been mentioned, the European Commission, for example, is subject to the strictest of audit regimes - far stricter than the UK Govt has to cope with. So there goes the "unaccountable" aspect from the purely monetary point of view.
As for political accountability and democracy, well:
There are three main EU bodies:
The European Parliament which is entirely democratic and is elected by EU citizens; (I wonder how many of us know who our MEPs are or how many we get in each region?)
The Council of the European Union which represents the Governments of the individual member states with the Presidency of the Council shared on a rotated basis among member countries. Each democratically elected Government sends its relevant ministers to represent its interests at Council; and
the aforementioned European Commission which is fully accountable for its actions. It has 28 commissioners, one for each country with the local democratically elected Governments nominating their representative. (Ours is Jonathan Hill who is The Commissioner for Financial Stability Financial Services and Capital Markets Union). Each Commissioner's appointment, including the President, is subject to the approval of the European Parliament. In office, they remain strictly accountable to The European Parliament, which has sole power to dismiss the Commission. In addition, The European Parliament votes on whether to approve the accounts and makes recommendations on how to improve the management of the budget of the Commission and the Commission must act on any recommendations the Parliament makes.
So, in summary, I'm not quite sure how much more democratic and accountable you think the EU could be.
Would our weather in England be better or worse ?
Could we still get Parma Ham in Waitrose ?
Will my greengrocer start selling Llbs of potatoes again ?
Might I buy my fuel in gallons from my local Total petrol station ?
Is Reza going to be allowed to continue playing for us ?
(I realise that I ought to read up on these issues but
can't be arsedam presently otherwise engagedIt is important to take sweeping statements and casual use of stats and interrogate them a bit, in order to really get to grips with the issues, wouldn't you agree?
Now the Polish PM is saying we'd be racists if we put Benefit regulations on immigrants and the wonderful Czech EU Minister tweeting 'photo's of Czech pilots sitting next to a hurricane in 1940 without any hint of irony of his '4 years without benefit' tweet.
Political posturing from former Eastern Bloc countries aren't going to work with the British electorate.
Analysis by the University College London Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration found that while the fiscal contribution by European workers was overwhelmingly positive – amounting to £20 billion in a decade – the same was not true for non-EU arrivals.
Between 1995 and 2011, immigrants from outside the EU made a negative contribution of £118 billion over 17 years, the report found, using more publicly-funded services, including the NHS, education and benefits, than they paid in tax.
But native Britons also received more than they contributed in the same 17-year period – amounting to a cost of £591 billion as the national deficit grew - and European arrivals gave a £4.4 billion boost.
The report said the gulf between arrivals from inside and outside of the EU could partly be explained by the large number of children had by non-EU immigrants, as the cost of their education was counted but as the children were UK-born, their subsequent tax contributions were not factored into the report.
Migrants who arrived since 2000 were 43 per cent less likely than UK-born workers to receive state benefits or tax
Your defence of EU immigration is unambiguous, Muttley. What you say is that it is a good thing and I take your view to be that it should be encouraged and no restriction at all is desirable, due to the economic effects. You say non EU immigration is not necessarily so good and has negative economic impact. You seem to imply it should be restricted but as our ability to do that is not affected by membership of the EU it s not therefore relevant to the referendum debate.
That's how it reads. I suspect however your view on non EU migration is more liberal than that.
Anyway debate on this aspect should ideally be based on some reliable stats, I feel.
Reckon this is all premature and I think I may give this thread a swerve for a year or so!
I doubt Europe will stop trade with us if we leave. Do you honestly think the massive European companies will be forced to pull out of the UK only because we left the EU? Europe's economy would be in a right state because they sell us far more than we sell them so it would be Europe that would lose out more than we do.
It is not political posturing you are referring to. They are ill-judged remarks from relatively inexperienced politicians, but if you have an ounce of empathy in your body, you might at least understand that these people are seriously offended by the remarks coming from UK politicians. They take it personally, and you might too if you were in their shoes.
During an election debate, Ed Miliband was asked by a member of the public why the Australian economy did so much better and was less effected by the crash than we were. Miliband explained in simple terms the truth - that the Australian economy was less reliant of the financial services sector. He did not need to give detailed figures, his explanation was all that was required, but the narrow minded questioner took by the fact he didn't that he was being evasive. My hope is that people, rather than demanding detailed facts from people open their minds and research for themselves. After they believe they have found the true facts, not headlines from certain quarters with their own agendas, they can decide where they stand and their opinion should be respected, whether it agrees with yours or not.
Many untruths have been told in recent weeks and scaremongering about problems that are not as big as people were led to believe was up there with the best of them. Make people angry and think they are being dealt an injustice and you have them.
Under immigration laws, we discriminating against a highly skilled doctor from India in favour of a un-skilled worker from Romania and due to this freedom of movement we can not stop any EU citizen from entering the UK. This means anyone who is a convicted criminal can enter the UK anytime!
I want us to go back when we had immigration controls in the 90's when we had less than 50,000 migrants entering the UK and they bring a great contribution to this Country. We have to leave the EU or the EU finally gives in on freedom of movement for us to achieve this. Australia and Canada have it spot on with immigration controls but we will not have the same control as they do I am afraid.
Migration Watch link
"Of the 178,000 net migration from the EU, 82,000 were estimated to come from the EU15 [France, Germany, etc] and 48,000 from the A8 [Poland, Latvia, etc]. The data shows that in the year ending December 2014 an estimated 46,000 citizens of Romania and Bulgaria migrated to the UK while 4,000 left."
The parts in italics were added by me.
I would expect that immigration from Ireland, for which a separate free movement agreement exists, constitutes a disproportionately large part of the figure for the EU15.
61% of the net immigration is from outside the EU, using MigrationWatch figures, and 53% of the EU immigration is from "new" members (who joined since 2000). MigrationWatch are, in my understanding, an organisation who would like to restrict immigration.
The biggest immigrant group coming to the UK are now Chinese people
The 60%/40% split between non-EU and EU migrants is backed up by a Parliament report, but its figures are up to 2011. It also backs up that the biggest proportion of EU immigration is from the EU15, which would normally be considered wealthy countries.
For my part, I've always felt the debate about immigration was wrongheaded. Leaving aside the fact that immigrants travel to the UK because they believe there are more jobs available and the economy is doing well, the real issue with immigration is where they choose to go. Obviously, if all the major investment in the country is in the south east, then that's where the jobs are and that's where people choose to go. If, instead, the investment was elsewhere, other locations could be more attractive. An independent Scotland would have needed significant immigration in order to deal with its ageing population. It also has a lot of space for a growing population, without building over Loch Lomond. If the government focused investment on Scotland, Wales and the north of England, it could make those regions more attractive for new immigrants and for people living in the south east.
That does mean that London would have to subsidise investment in the rest of the country, but if you want to reduce overcrowding in the south east, then that's the way to do it. You can't seriously expect all the major investment to be in the London area but also moan that people want to live where the best infrastructure and jobs are.
Stay in or leave is not going to make much difference to me. Nowadays Europe is just a great big playground for me.
No one disagrees that UK would be worse off by withdrawing from the EU and losing the benefit of the internal market. Our government already has a report which confirms this with input from our main trading partners including Japan, all of whom categorically say UK should remain within the internal market. Also, every other EU partner would worse off, Germany to the tune of 50bn Euro, 300bn for UK.
Challenge from interviewer - Why could UK not have the benefit of the internal trading arrangements by striking the same bargain as do Switzerland, Channel Isands etc.
Response - It could, but that is the same as a two tier EU membership. The ONLY downside he articulated is loss of influence within EU for policy decisions. In contradiction of this, I sense some pro EU supporters are defending the EU by saying there are no big political decisions that affect the UK that we need to worry about.
The Yes campaign has a weak case, which comes down to little more than supporting political union. Our trading partners outside the EU, whose views we can assume are objective, are not concerned with the UK being part of a political union, only an internal trading arrangement. The point of common agreement, which can put to bed the economic argument once and for all, is that the UK MUST maintain trade agreements as currently exist. As every other EU partner would suffer financially if agreement was not reached,, what reason is there to believe it would not happen? The Yes campaign has to prove a case that we would fail to replace the internal trade arrangements to get my vote.
On immigration, the UK needs immigration, if not, our ageing population will soon outnumber the actively working population and undermine the balance essential to maintain the economic activity to support the non working population. This logic probably sat behind the Labour government's laissez faire attitude in the 1990s.
The concerns of everyday working people is, and always has been, only about control. Control of the pace of immigration and control of selection based on skills the immigrants import. Despite those who seem to claim we are rich enough to act as an international health and welfare support service, we are struggling to met the needs of our existing population, and don't have a money tree orchard.
The fact is that we will only have control over our immigration policy outside the EU. Within the EU it will only come about by a change to the EU treaty, and that has been ruled out.
For me it's game set and match, we should exit the EU unless there is a treaty change that separated economic from political union.
"Switzerland and Australia, with about a quarter of their population born outside the country, are the two countries with the highest proportion of immigrants in the western world." (Admittedly I copied that from Wikipedia!).
About a year ago the Swiss had a referendum and narrowly agreed to abandon the existing trade deal with the EU because of fears about immigration. However, the alternative arrangements negotiated by their government were recently overwhelmingly rejected in another referendum. So Switzerland remains part of Schengen and basically does what it is told by the EU.
I don't believe this sort of model would suit the UK.
Apart from the above, from what I can see, your thesis appears to be that China and India are growing economic powers who have or will overtake the EU, and many businesses in the UK are small. There was also a disagreement between you and cafcfan (who seems to have worked on it) on the EU's approach to banking regulation.
What are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK over the past 3 years?
What would be the real-life negative consequences of the UK voting to stay in the EU?
What would be the real-life positive consequences of the UK voting to leave the EU?
What are the real-life bad things that the EU has done to the UK over the past 3 years? Not the last three years but look what has happened to our fishing industry. The way the EU reaches decisions is by way of trading competing interests. We were allowed to join the EEC only by giving up sovereignty of our fishing grounds. It's about control again. Our fishing grounds were immediately raped by Spanish trawlers ignoring quotas that we, as honest Brits kept to. With restricted quotas and insane rules that meant destroying fish catches instead of landing them as food, our fishermen lost their livelihoods and sold their UK rights to the Spanish and French to make the elimination of our fish stocks even more rapid. The result has been the elimination of our cod and herring stocks. Entirely down to EU membership and our inability to make our own laws to protect our fish stocks and industry. Scandinavia, outside the EU, has a sustainable fishing industry.
All EU decisions are inevitably a compromise, you give me this and I'll give you that, or no deal. The more member States there are, the less any single decision optimises the outcome in the interests for each individual nation. That process is a bad decision making process in terms of leading to the most favourable outcomes for any one nation. It is acceptable only if you think the vision of political union and sharing resources in an equitable way is possible. You can justify voting Yes if you do, and No if you don't. I can recognise the benefits of sharing resources, I just don't trust the system to do it fairly and I don't see how the powerful will not still dominate the agenda of their own ends. France did it for years on the common agricultural policy.
What would be the real-life negative consequences of the UK voting to stay in the EU? Continuing growth of the EU beyond a credible number of manageable nations. It started off as six States able to achieve, in theory, economic convergence as a political and economic union. The example of Greece show how the system cannot work with a wide disparity of economic characteristics and attitudes to fiscal control. So, much as I would like to acknowledge it, I cannot see the ideal of a united States of Europe being an achievable success. Too much reliance is on making an ideal vision a reality, than the reality of what is achievable.
What would be the real-life positive consequences of the UK voting to leave the EU? Giving our voters greater political control over domestic policy. Reducing a layer of politics that affects our lives. Whether that is positive depends on how the UK exercises control and what voters vote for. It will probably have an impact on how we approach the move for devolution within our country. Being outside the EU rather than within it will arguably give us space to do what we decide without external pressures distorting the design to avoid conflict with EU process.
"What would be the real-life positive consequences of the UK voting to leave the EU? Giving our voters greater political control over domestic policy. Reducing a layer of politics that affects our lives."
OK let me try on you a question I have tried to pose here before, as well as in English pubs.
Think about the three things which currently bother you most about your own current life in the UK, and which could reasonably be resolved via the political process. (so, probably not the personal behaviour of family members or friends, but for example the state of the NHS, or South Eastern trains (two which head the list of my sister in Eltham)). Please list them.
Then comes part 2… if you'd be so kind
BTW Norway is not part of the EU, but the rest of "Scandinavia" is. And all three of those other countries have coastal fishing fleets. See also my earlier notes on Norway.
Trade agreements are a compromise, and the UK would have to start negotiations on a whole host of trade agreements immediately after voting to leave the EU, both with the EU itself and with other countries. Many of those other countries are, as you say, growing in economic power and may not feel they have to compromise so much with the UK as they would have to with the EU.
As far as I see it, if there are priorities on political union, they're within the Eurozone rather than within the EU as a whole. And progress is slow on that (if there is any). The UK can remain outside these issues while remaining in the EU.
As regards devolution, some of the EU states have central government and some are federalised. Apart from one map which showed regions of each country based on geographical factors for the purpose of statistical gathering, there is no indication that the EU has any opinion on how the UK chooses to align itself. If it has any concerns, they would only be about the likelihood of a UK breakup.
I'll come back to control, and the suggestion that the UK could copy Norway. You yourself have mentioned the requirement to maintain the trading relationships while also praising Norway's fishing policy. As member state of the European Economic Area, Norway fully applies the whole acquis communautaire relevant to the four freedoms (free movement of goods, persons, services and capital), along with that pertinent to flanking policies (ie transport, competition, social policy, consumer protection, environment, statistics and company law). As a result, the EEA agreement provides for a high degree of economic integration, common competition rules, rules for state aid and government procurement.
Norway contributes £205m per annum to the EU budget and Norway has adopted three-quarters of EU legislation without having a say.
Fishing policy would need to be very important for the UK economy for the above to be considered "control".
And now the Polish PM is 'inexperienced' at the Czech EU Minister, who you kept reminding us saw a way round the immigration/benefits issue beore the election is now making 'ill-judged' remarks.
And to be quite honest, I don't give a tinkers cuss that they're 'offended' by our elected politicians.
1. The housing shortage and housing policy - nothing to do with the EU
2. 30 years of political decisions of both the UK and the EU which has destroyed the viability of employer sponsored pensions - partly to do with the EU
3. People looking to the State instead of themselves to sort out their problems. - partly to do with the EU
Not everything needs to be about the economy. As a member of conservation groups and a fisherman, I regret the fact that fish are unseen and not noticed until they disappear. I used to visit Cornwall and unlike in the 1960s when there were fishing boats and fisherman to give colour and character to the region, it is now a sad shadow of what it was. No boats, no fish, no fishermen and a way of life destroyed. Why does Thatcher destroying the way of life of miners carry such bitter memories yet the EU agreement destroying a fishing industry is no part of folklore? The coal is still there, the fish have gone but no one notices apart from fishermen.
I do not fail to recognise that we would have to pay for some trade arrangements. I am not a believer in free lunches out there as many in this country seem to think. However, I would prefer to pay cash and optimise use of our own talents and resources than go round the houses paying in EU luncheon vouchers financed by a mis-matched contribution from our resources and audited according to the FIFA book of accounting conventions.
Nor am I denying a relationship with the EU is not necessary, it simply does not have to be full blown political union.
The problem is that anyone not pro EU is characterised by a frequent Nick Clegg statement as "wanting to pull up the drawbridge ban migration and become an inward looking nation". That smacks of a need to fabricate the opponents case to project the only argument that can easily be countered.
I support in theory the policy of renegotiation with the EU, but accept the reality that it is a pipe dream.
As for your last sentence, well no, I'm sure you don't .