UK EU Referendum - Stay in or leave?

[mindlight]

The referendum has been called for June 23rd.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35621079
Should the UK leave the EU?

If it does is the EU finished as an effective organisation?

Would it be good or bad for the UK overall?

What are your thoughts?

Was the deal offered by the EU to the UK and addressing UK concerns with the organisation sufficient to keep the UK in:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...02/02-letter-tusk-proposal-new-settlement-uk/

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The referendum has been called for June 23rd.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35621079
Should the UK leave the EU?

If it does is the EU finished as an effective organisation?

Would it be good or bad for the UK overall?

What are your thoughts?

Was the deal offered by the EU to the UK and addressing UK concerns with the organisation sufficient to keep the UK in:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...02/02-letter-tusk-proposal-new-settlement-uk/

We should leave. The EU is a large bureaucratic undemocratic mess that strips away Britain's sovereignty over her own borders and laws.

I believe at least in the long run it will certainly be good for Britain to be an independent country again and settle her own affairs.

The deal is very much insufficient, but I suspect politicians could do a good job of spinning it into a good deal and persuading people to stay in with the usual scaremongering.

If Britain leaves, that poses a serious threat to the continued existence of the EU, which is great. The eurosceptics are already doing well in France, with Britain gone there will be a big surge in euroscepticism across Europe, I don't believe the EU will be able to stay together.

 

[Flankerl]

If it does is the EU finished as an effective organisation?

No it will probably be beneficial.

Would it be good or bad for the UK overall?

lol who cares.

What are your thoughts?

Sadly De Gaulle couldn't rule forever and so the US Aircraft Carrier joined the EEC.

We should leave. The EU is a large bureaucratic undemocratic mess that strips away Britain's sovereignty over her own borders and laws.

That's funny one could think you have just talked about Westminster.

And no the EU does no such thing as the UK opts out most of the time.

I believe at least in the long run it will certainly be good for Britain to be an independent country again and settle her own affairs.

Please change your flag once you officially become a state of the US. Would be weird otherwise.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That's funny one could think you have just talked about Westminster.

And no the EU does no such thing as the UK opts out most of the time.

Westminster is democratically elected. The EU does not represent who Britain voted for in the European elections. Westminster ultimately is British and represents the vote of a people of shared culture and nationality, the EU cannot act in the same capacity.

The EU demands freedom of movement, no opt-out there, taking away Britain's control of her borders to European immigrants. The EU also imposes hundreds of regulations and laws on British businesses, which Parliament has no say over.

Please change your flag once you officially become a state of the US. Would be weird otherwise.

World's fifth biggest economy, I doubt that's going to happen. Other independent countries far smaller than the UK have got on just fine.

 

[Laika]

I would have said "yes" (to stay in) a while back, but after the draconian deal struck to keep Greece in the Euro, as well as the extremism of TTTP I'm not sure. the far left would argue leaving the EU is necessary for the UK to become "socialist" again- but beyond rhethoric and vague ideological objections with little immediate practical consequence, I really don't know whether to take that seriously. it's something I will have to sit down and research to try to cut through the spin.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I would have said "yes" a while back, but after the draconian deal struck to keep Greece in the Euro, as well as the extremism of TTTP I'm not sure. the far left would argue leaving the EU is necessary for the UK to become "socialist" again- but beyond rhethoric and vague ideological objections with little immediate practical consequence, I really don't know whether to take that seriously. it's something I will have to sit down and research to try to cut through the spin.

Plans to re-nationalise railways, energy companies and the national grid, proposed not just by the far left but Corbyn's Labour, who actually have a chance of getting into power, would be very difficult and many say impossible under current EU law. http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu-membership-means-no-renationalisation/

For sake of balance here is a rebuttal and a proposed road to re-nationalisation within the EU (http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/02/sorry-nigel-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/), but the solutions are still very strained, difficult and present a number of hurdles that might still not be overcome, and in the end leave you wondering, why bother with it all in the first place? Why place ourselves under these restrictions and burdens by a bureaucracy we did not elect?

 

[Laika]

Plans to re-nationalise railways, energy companies and the national grid, proposed not just by the far left but Corbyn's Labour, who actually have a chance of getting into power, would be very difficult and many say impossible under current EU law. http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu-membership-means-no-renationalisation/

For sake of balance here is a rebuttal and a proposed road to re-nationalisation within the EU (http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/02/sorry-nigel-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/), but the solutions are still very strained, difficult and present a number of hurdles that might still not be overcome, and in the end leave you wondering, why bother with it all in the first place? Why place ourselves under these restrictions and burdens by a bureaucracy we did not elect?

Thanks for the links. I did try to look up the anti-nationalisation claim a while back (as its an important one for the left). apparently it's article 106 which governs competition law (as it shows in the first link). Theortically, the further left you go- the most anti-EU you would be, characterising it as for "big bussiness" and a "capitalist institution". (e.g. The Communist Party of Britan, tiny as it is, would leave the EU and supports a UK exit). it is however really important to find out the facts as the media doesn't really print them. (The far left don't have a good track record for telling the whole story either). scare stories sell better and hand over decision-making power to the politicains who do have the information. It would probably be a really good idea to have an indepth debate on RF in the run-up to the referundum just to see what actually stacks up.

Spoiler: Article 106

Article 106

(ex Article 86 TEC)

1. In the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 18 and Articles 101 to 109.

2. Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.

3. The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Article and shall, where necessary, address appropriate directives or decisions to Member States.

--------------------------------------------------

 

[Flankerl]

Westminster is democratically elected. The EU does not represent who Britain voted for in the European elections. Westminster ultimately is British and represents the vote of a people of shared culture and nationality, the EU cannot act in the same capacity.

Yeah completely democratically elected, but then again elected by FPTP. Which is pretty much stone age democracy.

Oh and when did you last time vote for the House of Lords? Been some time I guess. Do you still have hereditary and clergy members?

The EU demands freedom of movement, no opt-out there, taking away Britain's control of her borders to European immigrants. The EU also imposes hundreds of regulations and laws on British businesses, which Parliament has no say over.

So you are saying that a political Organisation which is about free movement of goods and people has freedom of movement as one of its principles?

No way Jose!

And of course Parliament has a say over them. You can pressure your MPs or I don't know, vote in the EU elections and then pressure your MPs in that Parliament.
Oh and these MPs even get to vote on issues. I think we people on the Continent have a word for that...

World's fifth biggest economy, I doubt that's going to happen. Other independent countries far smaller than the UK have got on just fine.

Oh man the Banking Business which is pretty much the only business the UK has left apart from making Whisky, sure is going to love being treated like they operate out of Moldova.



So yes please vote for the Exit. Please.

Let it go...

 

[columbus]

Back in the 70s, when I first heard of the EU concept, it made perfect sense to me. Individually the states are little more than quaint tourist destinations. Together, they rival any superpower. Pick a currency, smooth out the laws and culture, cooperate, and you're in.
Since then, watching from the outside, I have developed a more nuanced understanding of "united states". To keep the USA together, from Mississippi and South Carolina to Vermont and Indiana, required the invention of industrial war.
Maybe the European Union can avoid that. Maybe not.
Tom

 

[mindlight]

We should leave. The EU is a large bureaucratic undemocratic mess that strips away Britain's sovereignty over her own borders and laws.

There is a democratic deficit. There are things that work well and others that do not. But would Britain have any more control of its destiny outside if it was cold shouldered by the European club and lacked the corporate weight of Europe in global negotiations. Is independence a choice of poor powerlessness. Afterall we no longer have our empire.

I believe at least in the long run it will certainly be good for Britain to be an independent country again and settle her own affairs.

We could make a go of whatever choice we make in the long run. But leaving is a choice for a lot of short to medium term painful change. Is the case to leave so convincing that it makes it worth it.

The deal is very much insufficient, but I suspect politicians could do a good job of spinning it into a good deal and persuading people to stay in with the usual scaremongering.

I think there may be more substance in this than you say. The Germans also are interested in a level of reform. Whether it is enough is another question.

If Britain leaves, that poses a serious threat to the continued existence of the EU, which is great. The eurosceptics are already doing well in France, with Britain gone there will be a big surge in euroscepticism across Europe, I don't believe the EU will be able to stay together.

The support for Europes dissolution which is already strong in Europe would be enhanced by Britain leaving.

 

[mindlight]

I would have said "yes" (to stay in) a while back, but after the draconian deal struck to keep Greece in the Euro, as well as the extremism of TTTP I'm not sure. the far left would argue leaving the EU is necessary for the UK to become "socialist" again- but beyond rhethoric and vague ideological objections with little immediate practical consequence, I really don't know whether to take that seriously. it's something I will have to sit down and research to try to cut through the spin.

Do you really think that Britain would be more socialist outside the EU than in. I would think it more likely to go the other way.

I opposed the deal for Greece on the grounds it was pouring money down the drain and that I believe Greece would be better off outside the Euro though not the EU.

 

[mindlight]

Plans to re-nationalise railways, energy companies and the national grid, proposed not just by the far left but Corbyn's Labour, who actually have a chance of getting into power, would be very difficult and many say impossible under current EU law. http://www.leftfutures.org/2015/09/eu-membership-means-no-renationalisation/

For sake of balance here is a rebuttal and a proposed road to re-nationalisation within the EU (http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/10/02/sorry-nigel-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/), but the solutions are still very strained, difficult and present a number of hurdles that might still not be overcome, and in the end leave you wondering, why bother with it all in the first place? Why place ourselves under these restrictions and burdens by a bureaucracy we did not elect?

An unfettered Corbyn would ruin Britain and would most likely be just as bureaucratic as Europe is accused of being in his efforts to regulate business and redistribute wealth. Maybe one advantage of Europe is that it protects countries from stupid choices like that.

 

[mindlight]

No it will probably be beneficial.

Britain is a massive net contributor to the European budget and has the second largest economy in Europe after Germany. Moreover it is actually growing and creating jobs. Taxes in Germany would rise to pay the extra contributions.

Sadly De Gaulle couldn't rule forever and so the US Aircraft Carrier joined the EEC.

That Britain is more pro American than many EU countries is a case for it staying. Europe without it would be more likely to drift away from the alliances that have ensured world stability the last 70 years.

If Europe splits from America the world becomes a lot less stable a place.

 

[mindlight]

Back in the 70s, when I first heard of the EU concept, it made perfect sense to me. Individually the states are little more than quaint tourist destinations. Together, they rival any superpower. Pick a currency, smooth out the laws and culture, cooperate, and you're in.
Since then, watching from the outside, I have developed a more nuanced understanding of "united states". To keep the USA together, from Mississippi and South Carolina to Vermont and Indiana, required the invention of industrial war.
Maybe the European Union can avoid that. Maybe not.
Tom

The EU does not really follow the American model and nor will it. But the multinationals are definitely in favour of the EU as it is easier to do business across Europe. Those who argue the case for leaving often counter that middle to small sized business do not benefit to the same degree and this is where the growth and new jobs is being generated.

 

[columbus]

The EU does not really follow the American model and nor will it.

Maybe not.
But let me draw a progression for you.
The War Between the States. The Great War to end all wars. World War II.
Are you telling me that yet another war over conflicts of interest is impossible? With "new and improved" military technology?
I don't have that much faith in the European Union, myself.
Tom

 

[mindlight]

Maybe not.
But let me draw a progression for you.
The War Between the States. The Great War to end all wars. World War II.
Are you telling me that yet another war over conflicts of interest is impossible? With "new and improved" military technology?
I don't have that much faith in the European Union, myself.
Tom

Federalism v nationalism has a different balance here than in the USA. We do not share a common language but we do have a common experience of the devastation of war between nations. That makes conflict less likely and the conflicts that do occur are consequently also less violent. But they are nonetheless real in a different way. The unity is an agreement between nations and the disunity has serious economic consequences rather than actual war.

In the USA the states lost to the idea of Federalism in the bloodiest war in American history. Thus the balance has been irrevocably changed. There is no real tension in actual power terms. Central government won. Many Americans resent that but they have no power or inclination to change it.

The choice to stay in the EU is not one about Federalism or independence. It is more akin to membership of a club.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Back in the 70s, when I first heard of the EU concept, it made perfect sense to me. Individually the states are little more than quaint tourist destinations. Together, they rival any superpower. Pick a currency, smooth out the laws and culture, cooperate, and you're in.
Since then, watching from the outside, I have developed a more nuanced understanding of "united states". To keep the USA together, from Mississippi and South Carolina to Vermont and Indiana, required the invention of industrial war.
Maybe the European Union can avoid that. Maybe not.
Tom

Also forgetting that American states have some sort of shared culture, language, history, etc. Europe isn't one big country of the same people, but individual nations each with different histories and different legal systems and languages and cultures and traditions etc., I don't believe forcing them together will work or is a good thing.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

An unfettered Corbyn would ruin Britain and would most likely be just as bureaucratic as Europe is accused of being in his efforts to regulate business and redistribute wealth. Maybe one advantage of Europe is that it protects countries from stupid choices like that.

Whether it is a stupid choice is besides the point. Isn't it a choice for Britain to make? Does our nation need to be coddled and guided by a European superstate? I think we're more than capable of making our own decisions.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

There is a democratic deficit. There are things that work well and others that do not. But would Britain have any more control of its destiny outside if it was cold shouldered by the European club and lacked the corporate weight of Europe in global negotiations. Is independence a choice of poor powerlessness. After all we no longer have our empire.

Fifth largest economy in the world, I think we Brits can be quite pessimistic about how influential we actually are. Other countries lower down on the economic ladder manage just fine and negotiate their own trade deals, we can do even better.

We could make a go of whatever choice we make in the long run. But leaving is a choice for a lot of short to medium term painful change. Is the case to leave so convincing that it makes it worth it.

While I don't agree it will necessarily be as painful as you say, even if it was painful in the short run, I would say independence is worth it.

A prisoner who manages to escape his prison will find himself in a world that is harsh and difficult, and will have to fend for himself. The prisoner's muscles will have grown weak and slow, to the point he has forgotten how to live an independent life.

I hope the prisoner will pull through and believe it is worthwhile to have independence, even if it means adjusting to independent living again. Or, sadly, he may return to his prison cell, because it's a lot easier to be dependent on someone else, to have your meals prepared for you, a room to sleep in.

I think there may be more substance in this than you say. The Germans also are interested in a level of reform. Whether it is enough is another question.

After Merkel took in an absurd 1 million migrants I'm not sure what reform she's after. Less regulation I suppose, but that's not really enough.

The support for Europes dissolution which is already strong in Europe would be enhanced by Britain leaving.

Yep, very much so.

 

[mindlight]

Whether it is a stupid choice is besides the point. Isn't it a choice for Britain to make? Does our nation need to be coddled and guided by a European superstate? I think we're more than capable of making our own decisions.

Yes true and I do trust the common sense of the English people. They may well elect another Labour government but I very much doubt it will be one led by Corbyn. But Europes democratic deficit does not extend to Westminster elections which work according to the British model of doing elections. The issue of how much Europe restricts what a government can do is an important one and especially on the issues that Cameron campaigned on - e.g. Competitiveness for instance. At the end of the day we are deciding whether Europe complements and enhances our ability to do stuff or detracts from it.