UK EU Referendum - Stay in or leave?

[Rick O'Shez]

Even if we will never be a superpower again, isn't it better to be independent, for the sake of our nationhood, our identity, our country?

I would rather be in a European state than become increasingly like a US state. I have dual nationality ( British/Irish ), so perhaps my perspective isn't typical.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

We're not a super-power any more, so it probably makes sense to be part of something bigger.

The choice is whether we wish to a province of a European superstate. I see no need. Personally, I'd rather be an independent small power than subject to a United States of Europe.

 

[mindlight]

There is no European super state. The EU is a union of Sovererign states. The European parliament has few powers and those it has have been agreed by all the individual nations.

The members of the council of ministers are also nominated by individual countries through their respective governments.
Much in the way our own ministers are appointed by our prime minister.

Such systems of government are by agreement not imposed.

Also the current weight of Germany in the EU will be reduced by the possible loss of Merkel. If Merkel loses in the state elections coming up and is replaced before the referendum then German leadership will not be taken for granted in Europe. The appearance of the EU as a coherent unit with clear leadership will be seriously reduced once Merkel is gone. The reality of Europe is sovereign states with shared interests but the game of perception has real consequences and after a decade in office Merkel has real authority in Brussels. A new German Chancellor would not have that same weight.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Personally, I'd rather be an independent small power than subject to a United States of Europe.

The idea of a us being an "independent power" in the modern world is a fiction in my view.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The idea of a us being an "independent power" in the modern world is a fiction in my view.

In a globalised world, of course we'll have to rely on others for trade etc., that's natural, we aren't self-sufficient, but we can certainly be more independent, at least having control of fundamental things like our own borders, regulations, make our own trade deals, etc.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

The idea of a us being an "independent power" in the modern world is a fiction in my view.

It depends what you mean by independent. You are conflating being ruled directly from Brussels with not having complete control over trade and that sort of thing.

I don't see how a patriotic Englishman or Brit could even contemplate staying in the EU.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It depends what you mean by independent. You are conflating being ruled directly from Brussels with not having complete control over trade and that sort of thing.

I don't see how a patriotic Englishman or Brit could even contemplate staying in the EU.

In or out of any organisation like the EU... we can never be more than an active part of a network of other countries. We are always dependant on collective decisions and choices regarding ourselves. The greater our cooperation and our links that we have with others the greater our overall influence on them and the the world stage.

We can never go back in history to the time when we controlled large parts of the world by force. There never was a time when we had control of our empire voluntarily.
We still trade with most of the Commonwealth countries, but we are the main trade partner of none but the smallest of them. There is no possibility that they could replace lost trade with the EU.

It is of course true that any country can exist as an independent trading nation. However the status of the UK has changed we no longer trade or manufacture independently.
All of our manufacturing relies on sourcing components from elsewhere.almost none of our larger companies are solely UK owned They are part of international conglomerates, and rely on the fickle nature of international trade for their continuation.

We could of course unknit the yarn of all our trade and political agreements and re knit it to make a totally new arrangement. But the result would probably be like a garment with more arms than legs and quite unfit for purpose. The undoing is the easy bit, getting other countries to renter into new agreements is difficult and very time consuming, and the outcomes far from certain. And equally uncertain, is that any new agreement would be as advantageous as the existing ones.

If France or Germany left the EU would we make new trade agreements with them as advantageous to them as the existing ones....? Why should they treat us any differently?

Patriotism is totally non productive. and is always inward looking, and selfish. Trade flourishes in partnerships of equals, where all partners benefit. A world made up of independent patriotic Countries, is a dog eat dog philosophy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In a globalised world, of course we'll have to rely on others for trade etc., that's natural, we aren't self-sufficient, but we can certainly be more independent, at least having control of fundamental things like our own borders, regulations, make our own trade deals, etc.

We are in control of our own border we are not part of the schengen agreement. That our border are so leaky is down to our own inability and weaknesses, no one else is involved. We have no idea who is here illegally or not, our control is non-existent. Leaving the EU will not change that one iota.

We as a member of the EU have set out the framework under which international trade flourishes. WE make our own trade deals now.
The regulations that we have set up in conjunction with other members ensure that trade deals are fair and equitable, not only between members but also with non member countries. If we were outside the EU we would still be subject to that framework. And like Microsoft and other international corporations have found, these agreements have real teeth. and the power to inflict real penalties and controls. we would be subject to these controls out side the EU, but not able to benefit from from their protections.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Is this what it has come to? Treacherous whelps who would sell their country for the most paltry little economic benefits. I think Peter Hitchens puts it well:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels?

I don’t care what the Queen thinks about British membership of the European Union. Her opinion on the subject, just like everyone else’s, is her affair. And it wouldn’t influence me one bit.

But if she’s as against it as some claim, then it’s odd that she allowed herself to become an EU citizen, a status which means she can’t legally be our Sovereign any more.

Her neutrality is a myth, though we have to wonder whether her Ministers press her to make contentious statements from time to time.

In this populist era, the monarch must either fight and face probable removal, or do as he or she is told.

Nobody really doubts that she sought to influence the Scottish independence referendum last year. And in 1998 she went out of her way to endorse the Blair Government’s surrender to the IRA.

In her 2004 festive broadcast she proclaimed ‘diversity is indeed a strength’ – a Royal endorsement of political correctness that a lot of us could have done without.

Last Christmas, five years after heaping praise on the timeless beauties of the King James Bible, she quoted scripture from an ugly, modern translation.

This odd record doesn’t suggest to me that she is hiding a fervent desire to return to the days of national independence.

I don’t think, when it comes to it, that many people do have such a desire. I have had it, for years. It is almost painful in its intensity, a choking, sometimes overpowering sense of loss.

But I have been struck by the normal response to the subject – shrugs and yawns. I am frankly baffled by the arrival in the ‘leave’ camp of so many people in politics and the media who never showed any sign of caring until the day before yesterday.

So no wonder their arguments are so uninspiring. David Cameron is dead right that people like me are prepared to pay a pretty stiff economic price, if necessary, for national liberation.

As a great Polish patriotic poet once said: ‘Your nation is like your health – only after you have lost it do you really appreciate its worth.’

I couldn’t care less what the CBI or the TUC or the Bank of England or the British Chambers of Commerce think about the EU. This isn’t a business transaction. You might as well go to the MCC or the British Federation of Lepidopterists, or a convention of stamp collectors, and ask them how to vote.

It isn’t about money or about jobs. It’s an instinct and an intuition. It is about that priceless thing, governing yourself, going out if necessary, into the biting cold – rather than staying warm and comfortable by being someone else’s servant or subject.

Each of us must decide this for himself or herself. If you need to know what anyone else thinks, then you don’t care enough and you’d be better off remaining the obedient citizen of a subject province that pretends to be an independent kingdom. No wonder this is such a dull campaign.

The nation state is not dead yet. This probably means little to trendy left-liberals, but it remains the case that there are innumerable ties of place, history, beliefs, ancestry that ties together a people and a nation and marks them off from others. There is still much to be said in favour of being able to govern yourself as a nation instead of having to take your diktats from some foreign overlords.

Yes, there are international ties, but it is simply false to suggest that there is no role for a sovereign nation today. There are many areas, in economics and society and law, where a nation can rule itself in whole or part. Why does the EU put so much (largely vain) effort into building up a European identity if the nation is irrelevant? We have felt the impact of the EU in many areas, from law to industrial relations to economic regulation, where we could have easily gone our own direction. Indeed, your point is somewhat self-defeating. If nations are bound to be tied to each other, why tie ourselves artificially and strongly to the EU. Why not just allow ourselves to be bound in all sorts international arrangements, to all sorts of nations. Binding ourselves fast to the EU seems like it would discourage other ties.

When you say we can have influence you are equivocating: it is not England who is to have this influence, but just the population of one European province.

We import more from the EU than we export. Therefore, it would hurt them more than us to impose retaliatory measures. At worst there will be a slight short-term economic dislocation if we leave, no great problems; no great bag of silver that, to sell out one's country.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Single Market isn't the Union.

I didn't say it was. I said the EU as it stands maintains that single market; it governs it. If we left the EU we'd still be able to access that single market, but it'd cost us more and we'd still be bound to do business to European standards - only outwith the EU we'd have no voice to influence those laws and we'd have to pay for the privilege.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Fifth biggest economy, have more faith in your country, man!

What has happened to our nation that we've become so resigned and okay with submitting to another power.

When Henry VIII split from the superpower at the time, the Roman church, he paved the way for a dominant independent England (of course he did so for purely selfish reasons).

Even if we will never be a superpower again, isn't it better to be independent, for the sake of our nationhood, our identity, our country?

And how do you define 'independent' exactly? Those who drift more to the right seem to define it as living in a vacuum, cut off from everyone else. They even super-imposed that definition onto Scottish independence and called it 'separation', the idiots.

Further, all this talk about 'British' sovereignty is merely innuendo for putting England back at the centre of its own little Universe.

Do you think the greats of British history would want us to submit ourselves to another power, or remain independent to the end and if we fail, we fail with dignity.

It doesn't matter what the "greats of British history" would want - they're dead and gone.

 

[Ultimatum]

If we left the EU we'd still be able to access that single market, but it'd cost us more

It would cost us leas.

and we'd still be bound to do business to European standards - only outwith the EU we'd have no voice to influence those laws and we'd have to pay for the privilege.

What a disgrace. Norway only adheres to ~21% of EU law--and this is law used to dismantle non-tariff barriers and preserve Single Market freedom.
Additionally, Norway sends experts to EEA/EFTA-EU Joint Committees and does have a say.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is this what it has come to? Treacherous whelps who would sell their country for the most paltry little economic benefits. I think Peter Hitchens puts it well:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels?

I don’t care what the Queen thinks about British membership of the European Union. Her opinion on the subject, just like everyone else’s, is her affair. And it wouldn’t influence me one bit.

But if she’s as against it as some claim, then it’s odd that she allowed herself to become an EU citizen, a status which means she can’t legally be our Sovereign any more.

Her neutrality is a myth, though we have to wonder whether her Ministers press her to make contentious statements from time to time.

In this populist era, the monarch must either fight and face probable removal, or do as he or she is told.

Nobody really doubts that she sought to influence the Scottish independence referendum last year. And in 1998 she went out of her way to endorse the Blair Government’s surrender to the IRA.

In her 2004 festive broadcast she proclaimed ‘diversity is indeed a strength’ – a Royal endorsement of political correctness that a lot of us could have done without.

Last Christmas, five years after heaping praise on the timeless beauties of the King James Bible, she quoted scripture from an ugly, modern translation.

This odd record doesn’t suggest to me that she is hiding a fervent desire to return to the days of national independence.

I don’t think, when it comes to it, that many people do have such a desire. I have had it, for years. It is almost painful in its intensity, a choking, sometimes overpowering sense of loss.

But I have been struck by the normal response to the subject – shrugs and yawns. I am frankly baffled by the arrival in the ‘leave’ camp of so many people in politics and the media who never showed any sign of caring until the day before yesterday.

So no wonder their arguments are so uninspiring. David Cameron is dead right that people like me are prepared to pay a pretty stiff economic price, if necessary, for national liberation.

As a great Polish patriotic poet once said: ‘Your nation is like your health – only after you have lost it do you really appreciate its worth.’

I couldn’t care less what the CBI or the TUC or the Bank of England or the British Chambers of Commerce think about the EU. This isn’t a business transaction. You might as well go to the MCC or the British Federation of Lepidopterists, or a convention of stamp collectors, and ask them how to vote.

It isn’t about money or about jobs. It’s an instinct and an intuition. It is about that priceless thing, governing yourself, going out if necessary, into the biting cold – rather than staying warm and comfortable by being someone else’s servant or subject.

Each of us must decide this for himself or herself. If you need to know what anyone else thinks, then you don’t care enough and you’d be better off remaining the obedient citizen of a subject province that pretends to be an independent kingdom. No wonder this is such a dull campaign.

The nation state is not dead yet. This probably means little to trendy left-liberals, but it remains the case that there are innumerable ties of place, history, beliefs, ancestry that ties together a people and a nation and marks them off from others. There is still much to be said in favour of being able to govern yourself as a nation instead of having to take your diktats from some foreign overlords.

Yes, there are international ties, but it is simply false to suggest that there is no role for a sovereign nation today. There are many areas, in economics and society and law, where a nation can rule itself in whole or part. Why does the EU put so much (largely vain) effort into building up a European identity if the nation is irrelevant? We have felt the impact of the EU in many areas, from law to industrial relations to economic regulation, where we could have easily gone our own direction. Indeed, your point is somewhat self-defeating. If nations are bound to be tied to each other, why tie ourselves artificially and strongly to the EU. Why not just allow ourselves to be bound in all sorts international arrangements, to all sorts of nations. Binding ourselves fast to the EU seems like it would discourage other ties.

When you say we can have influence you are equivocating: it is not England who is to have this influence, but just the population of one European province.

We import more from the EU than we export. Therefore, it would hurt them more than us to impose retaliatory measures. At worst there will be a slight short-term economic dislocation if we leave, no great problems; no great bag of silver that, to sell out one's country.

I don't think I have ever read such a neurotic or poorlly argued attack on the benefits of membership of the EU.
But in its own way it is welcome, as such diatribes do no service to the cause they porport to support.

 

[Altfish]

I don't see how a patriotic Englishman or Brit could even contemplate staying in the EU.

Why?
Are you saying that everyone who votes to stay in is unpatriotic

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I don't think I have ever read such a neurotic or poorlly argued attack on the benefits of membership of the EU.
But in its own way it is welcome, as such diatribes do no service to the cause they porport to support.

It is almost as if love for one's country and concern over its demise might cause passion in some.

The problem with this sort of rhetoric is you do nothing to support your claims, meaning you don't distinguish them from knee-jerk dismissals. This is turn means your claims can just be dismissed.

Now, Terry the traitor, care to give some sort of argument to support your claims?

If the nation state is dead, why do we as Englishmen still have a separate identity and culture to our continental and even American cousins? How many Englishmen feel themselves to be of Europeans in the same way they are English? Do they not to govern themselves, and should they not? Indeed, around the world, do we especially see that love of one's nation and its independence is diminishing?

Why, if there is nothing that can be done about rule by others, do many feel that rule by Brussels in many areas, from economic to regulations to human rights laws, is noteworthy and invasive (at the least)? Surely, this suggests there are areas we can rule ourselves?

Why, if we must be bound closer to other nations, must we so closely bind ourselves to Brussels? If the world is coming together, why must we be so parochial as to seek a European consolidation at the expense of the rest of the world? Why, indeed, if the nation state is dead, does Brussels itself seek the trappings of a nation state, such as a flag, anthem, and European identity?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Why?
Are you saying that everyone who votes to stay in is unpatriotic

I say that anyone who understands the nature of the EU, which is clearly to create a United States of Europe and has been since its beginning, and still wishes to stay in the EU is unpatriotic. Unfortunately, the nature of the EU is less apparent to most Brits than it is to many at the of the European project (where federalism is often acknowledged: Jacques "Up Yours" Delors at Maastricht said that federalism might be our guiding principle, for example).

We have seen avowed contempt for national sovereignty in this very thread. Do you think such people can be patriotic?

 

[Altfish]

I say that anyone who understands the nature of the EU, which is clearly to create a United States of Europe and has been since its beginning, and still wishes to stay in the EU is unpatriotic. Unfortunately, the nature of the EU is less apparent to most Brits than it is to many at the of the European project (where federalism is often acknowledged: Jacques "Up Yours" Delors at Maastricht said that federalism might be our guiding principle, for example).

We have seen avowed contempt for national sovereignty in this very thread. Do you think such people can be patriotic?

You throw scare phrases like "United States of Europe", "contempt for national sovereignty" and "Federalism" into your posts; I am an undecided (leaning 'Stay' I admit), but it is comments like yours calling me 'unpatriotic' that helps cement my probable 'Stay' voting.

Yes I do think people can be patriotic and vote to Stay, they believe it is best for the UK.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You throw scare phrases like "United States of Europe", "contempt for national sovereignty" and "Federalism" into your posts; I am an undecided (leaning 'Stay' I admit), but it is comments like yours calling me 'unpatriotic' that helps cement my probable 'Stay' voting.

Yes I do think people can be patriotic and vote to Stay, they believe it is best for the UK.

You didn't read my response properly. I didn't say you couldn't be patriotic and support staying in. I said you can't be patriotic and support staying in if you understand the EU's true nature. And how can paraphrasing Jacques Delors's own words at Maastricht be called throwing around scare phrases? Indeed, you have even seen the more vocal defenders of the EU in this thread imply that national sovereignty is obsolete, yet you accuse me of using scare phrases and seem, as undoubted patriot that you are, entirely unconcerned with their views.

Most don't understand this nature, including you. If you read the history of the EU you will find that its architects have always tried to push, usually stealthily using what has been become known as the Monnet Method, for ever closer union with the hope of eventually creating a suprastate. One of the earliest pressure groups, founded by Jean Monnet himself (acknowledged as a founding father of the EU) was known as the Action Committee for a United States of Europe. Eurocrats, from Monnet to Delors and onwards have been reasonably candid about their eventual goals, if you pay enough attention.

All this said, I think you'd have to have not been paying any attention to not have serious questions about the EU as a patriot. The EU has vast powers in many areas from culture to law and order, making ample use of qualified majority voting. I do think a true patriot would at least be very troubled by the EU as it is.

What are your patriotic reasons for staying in? How do you understand the EU?

 

[Altfish]

You didn't read my response properly. I didn't say you couldn't be patriotic and support staying in. I said you can't be patriotic and support staying in if you understand the EU's true nature. And how can paraphrasing Jacques Delors's own words at Maastricht be called throwing around scare phrases? Indeed, you have even seen the more vocal defenders of the EU in this thread imply that national sovereignty is obsolete, yet you accuse me of using scare phrases and seem, as undoubted patriot that you are, entirely unconcerned with their views.

Most don't understand this nature, including you. If you read the history of the EU you will find that its architects have always tried to push, usually stealthily using what has been become known as the Monnet Method, for ever closer union with the hope of eventually creating a suprastate. One of the earliest pressure groups, founded by Jean Monnet himself (acknowledged as a founding father of the EU) was known as the Action Committee for a United States of Europe. Eurocrats, from Monnet to Delors and onwards have been reasonably candid about their eventual goals, if you pay enough attention.

All this said, I think you'd have to have not been paying any attention to not have serious questions about the EU as a patriot. The EU has vast powers in many areas from culture to law and order, making ample use of qualified majority voting. I do think a true patriot would at least be very troubled by the EU as it is.

What are your patriotic reasons for staying in? How do you understand the EU?

I have told you I am undecided, but you have now labelled me ignorant because I don't "understand the EU's true nature". You are assuming because I don't agree with your conclusion that I don't understand the issues. How arrogant is that?
People like you alienate many undecided voters.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You keep ignoring half of what I actually say. I gave reasons for my conclusions about your knowledge, but you ignored these. No one who understood the EU and its history would dismiss talk of federalism as a mere scare phrase. Do you have any proper response to the points in my last post?

I do recall you are a sympathiser with IRA terrorism, so I hardly think you are the usual undecided voter.