Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd like to ask why you think you're better in than out? I'm not UK resident, nor do I plan on becoming UK resident again, but why do you think you're better in than out? I'd prefer you present them as positives, things it brings, not as negatives or risks of leaving.
For a start, you can quite easily list items we import that are crucial to the UK economy. Nothing is exclusive or indispensable. Without the French, we would have blackouts over 1/3rd of the country, and millions of folk would have no running water. Without the Spanish, airplanes would find it difficult to find anywhere to land. I think it's been foolish to allow so much of our crucial infrastructure to fall into foreign hands, but that's the British attitude. We follow the free trade ethos to the letter and shun protectionism. Too much. We would be better off with a little more "French" nationalism, but only a little.
I'm not going to turn my views upside down just because you "prefer" them that way. I will be voting to remain in the EU as I do not believe we will be better off out, that we will be better governed, that it will make the slightest difference to immigration. I believe we will have all the same problems that we currently have, but with massive animosity from the world's largest trading bloc on our doorstep (or at least, even more than is current), reduced inward investment, increased bureaucracy. I predict, should we leave, that the Europhobes will be very disappointed. Once the EU has been removed as the kicking-dog for the country's shortcomings, they will have to find a new one. Just like the Scots would if they had independence.
It's well known that when proposed EU legislation does the rounds of the states for evaluation, nobody gilds it more than the UK. We complain the loudest when it is passed, then implement it with more vigour than any other state. For a country that is so Eurosceptic, we embrace every line of every diktat with a passion.
I am, above all else, a pragmatist. If we leave the EU, it will be very, very painful indeed. The EU will ensure this, as we will be made an example to other sceptical countries who may be harbouring thoughts about holding their own referendums. We will have to follow the same rules as we do now to have access to the single market, probably end up paying a similar amount, but get nothing in return and no influence whatsoever in the matter. The "leave" campaign can promise nothing different, have no different vision. All they can do is say what they think will happen, or what is the likely outcome. Sorry - that is nothing like good enough to justify taking such a risk, especially considering the bunch of unhinged halfwits who lead it. I don't trust the instincts or judgement of Farage, Johnson, Duncan-Smith, Rees-Mogg, Hoey, Lawson, Grayling - they're all terrible people. Every time one opens their mouths, it reinforces my view.
For a start, you can quite easily list items we import that are crucial to the UK economy. Nothing is exclusive or indispensable. Without the French, we would have blackouts over 1/3rd of the country, and millions of folk would have no running water. Without the Spanish, airplanes would find it difficult to find anywhere to land. I think it's been foolish to allow so much of our crucial infrastructure to fall into foreign hands, but that's the British attitude. We follow the free trade ethos to the letter and shun protectionism. Too much. We would be better off with a little more "French" nationalism, but only a little.
Why would the Spanish be crucial to aircraft landing? They don't hold exclusive rights on tarmac, landing lights, ILS, tires, ground-air communications, or airspace, and the land is still held in trust by the crown. Do you have something that provides some form of citation that shows what precisely the Spanish provide that is required for landing aircraft in the UK? If you're talking about UK airports owned by Albertis (of which Luton was the biggest they owned), they sold the stake to Mexico's GPA last year. Even so they're not importing anything, they're operating in the UK, unless the companies are publicly owned, they can't be forced to cease operating in the UK, well they could, but that's going to result in some serious issues for those companies, who's foreign assets will be swept up everywhere outside of Europe for pennies on the dollar.
Meanwhile, that's not a positive that is brought by the EU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 640TAG
I'm not going to turn my views upside down just because you "prefer" them that way. I will be voting to remain in the EU as I do not believe we will be better off out, that we will be better governed, that it will make the slightest difference to immigration. I believe we will have all the same problems that we currently have, but with massive animosity from the world's largest trading bloc on our doorstep (or at least, even more than is current), reduced inward investment, increased bureaucracy. I predict, should we leave, that the Europhobes will be very disappointed. Once the EU has been removed as the kicking-dog for the country's shortcomings, they will have to find a new one. Just like the Scots would if they had independence.
I don't prefer it either way, I don't care to be frank, however it's interesting that you consider I've an biased interest. My interest is just in finding out what positives that you consider the EU brings that are not brought by the UK government, I'm more trying to get you to think about it objectively and rationally from it's benefits than from a series of fears of what may happen, but equally may not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 640TAG
It's well known that when proposed EU legislation does the rounds of the states for evaluation, nobody gilds it more than the UK. We complain the loudest when it is passed, then implement it with more vigour than any other state. For a country that is so Eurosceptic, we embrace every line of every diktat with a passion.
That isn't new, we've done that forever, and its even been discussed in the European parliament. It seems that it's the UK's culture, we follow rules and regs, when a piece of legislation is required to be implemented the UK does it according to the rules, whereas other EU countries my be more lethargic, or "forgetful" of following the legislation as written. Really there are only two primary countries that do this, the UK and Germany, and both have similar cultures in "following the rules".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 640TAG
I am, above all else, a pragmatist. If we leave the EU, it will be very, very painful indeed. The EU will ensure this, as we will be made an example to other sceptical countries who may be harbouring thoughts about holding their own referendums. We will have to follow the same rules as we do now to have access to the single market, probably end up paying a similar amount, but get nothing in return and no influence whatsoever in the matter. The "leave" campaign can promise nothing different, have no different vision. All they can do is say what they think will happen, or what is the likely outcome. Sorry - that is nothing like good enough to justify taking such a risk, especially considering the bunch of unhinged halfwits who lead it. I don't trust the instincts or judgement of Farage, Johnson, Duncan-Smith, Rees-Mogg, Hoey, Lawson, Grayling - they're all terrible people. Every time one opens their mouths, it reinforces my view.
Except you don't know this, you're projecting it, and you don't know that it is going to be as painful or as bad as you think. It's like being in a bad marriage, you need to carefully consider whether or not it's better to stay and try to fix it, or leave and suffer the divorce. However the longer you stay and try to fix things, but have no success in fixing them, the more sensible it is to leave and suffer the consequences.
You say the UK will be made an example, however you need to bear in mind that the UK accounts for close to 20% of the EU's economy, and I don't think that the Politicians in Europe (who like all politicians are corporate sponsored) will be in a position to do anything about it other than sputtering a lot and making lots of noise. The UK isn't a "small" country, it's economy is #5 in the world, only exceeded by one EU country (Germany), and the EU isn't a union shop, it still trades with the rest of the world, who don't follow EU rules, Levis imports millions of pairs of Jeans to Europe often manufactured in the Philippines with minimal child labor laws, the UK had child labor laws even before it entered the good old "Common Market". It imports goods from the US, Japan, China, who don't follow EU rules on employment, working hours, etc. So I don't know why the UK would be singled out to be required to follow EU regs, without any voice in the EU parliament even if it leaves, because the EU Parliament is having a hissy fit? Well that doesn't look good on the international stage does it? I just find some of the concerns unfounded, unless you bring in the Human element, but that's something that people should really be in control of, wars have been started for less than what may happen, even if it didn't go that far, it's going to be pretty difficult to maintain mutual defense agreements with people who are actively trying to destroy your economy in a fit of petty rage.
Finally of course the EU may be in no position to do anything on a UK exit, it's got some pretty big fish to fry in it's own pond without one of the bigger fish departing for the ocean. One thing is for sure that there will be a free trade agreement signed in the short term, whether or not that continued beyond an interim period would depend. That said any trade agreements the UK has with foreign countries under the EU blanket agreements would need to be renegotiated, that could be beneficial to the UK, or deterimental.
As far as politicians, they're all the same, you can tell they're lying because their lips are moving
I think the UK should be leading the EU. The EU has no idea what the heck they are doing. They don't know how to deal with Russia. They don't know how to deal with the refugee crisis. They don't have an effective financial system. They don't have the experience of Alexander Hamiliton or Adam Smith. Its too divided. Asia will divide and conquer Europe.
The UK should Anglicize the EU (except for French and Italian cuisine). Just like UK wanted to make the world Britain, you should make the continent Britain. The French can't lead. You can't trust the germans. The dutch will follow you and so will Eastern Europe. Plus, it gives the UK a purpose. One land, one langauge (english), one monetary policy, and effective management led by the UK.
Plus, the scottish will be content since they love the EU for some reason. They should move the EU capital to scotland.
You can also shoot down any Euro army that they are trying to make and keep NATO as the EU army.
I think the only comprise the UK should make with the EU is which side of the road to drive on.
It's true that the damage has been done to the UK already, but I'll still be voting to leave.
So far the remain campaign has done nothing other than spout absurd scare stories, which is to be expected as they have nothing else to offer but fear.
Spending our £55m per day membership fee on our own country is a prime reason to leave, and the ability to choose who comes to our country is another crucial consideration. All we have done for the last few decades is subsidise poor east and southern European countries and their dysfunctional economies.
Project fear cites the uncertainty of independence without understanding that the real uncertainty is remaining in the EU as it marches ever closer to full on federalism.
I'll take the ability to control our own destiny any day.
Roll on referendum day, the sooner we escape from the EU and its crazy ideology the better.
The thing is about that list is that it's saying all these things happened while we were in the EU, and the implication is none would have happened had we not been in the EU. Is that a fair implication, no not really.
Here's one I'm going to pick out, because I happen to know a bit about it (me holding a few dozen patents a few in the UK and the rest in the US).
"Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;"
Here's a question for you, my US patents, are embedded into software that runs in the US, Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antarctica, probably on the International Space Station, and on ships on the oceans. I hold patent and the licensing fees are still paid. Apple took Samsung to court in the US and Europe for patent infringement and copyright theft, Apples patents and copyrights are in the US, the EU recognizes these patents and copyrights, why would UK patent and copyright protections not extend to Europe if they were not in the EU? Well they would, because Patent and Copyright is regulated under international law, and the EU recognized international law since it deals with everyone in the world outside of Europe too. So no credit to Europe.
There are many other such examples, that assign credit to the EU that really have no place to be there, Lead Free Petrol, the whole world transitioned to lead free by the turn of the century in general, Japan in 1986, Germany 1988 and for much of late 80's - 90's cars driven in the UK were Japanese and German, the US (not known for being strongly environmentally sensitive transitioned in 1996, four years before Europe, bringing the US automotive companies into domestic lead free design, that said they'd been doing that since 1992 with California regulations). The same can be said about smoke free workplaces, and the UK regulations exceed EU requirements, so if anything, isn't the UK leading the EU, not the EU leading the UK?
EU representation in trade negotiations is a debatable benefit, if the UK is negotiating for itself, then it can get better or worse trade treaties, if the EU is negotiating on the UK's behalf then it can get better or worse trade treaties. However the UK's focus in negotiation is on the UK, the EU's focus in negotiation for the UK is on the EU.
The same can be said for EU funded research, the UK pays 3.1B Euro's per year to Brussels net, so that's deducting all monies returned in funds, subsidies, grants, etc. So while it may be EU funded, we pay 3.1 billion Euro's for the privilege. If we just funded that research ourselves and didn't pay the EU anything we'd have 3.1 billion Euro's to spend elsewhere, it could be given to people to go have a light night in the pub (around 45 quid), or parents could take their child's portion and have a decent night at the pub. We actually pay around 14B Euro's gross, so 11B Euro's goes to programs outside the UK.
It looks like an impressive shopping list of things, until you evaluate each item and consider whether or not it would have existed anyway if the UK were never in Europe, and then there isn't much left of that list. I will give the EU snaps for having a written charter on Human Rights, that the UK government would never have done by itself. Like it's never had, because you don't really need, a written constitution, because everyone of every political persuasion in the UK plays by the same rules, and always will, right..?
However that's not big potatoes when you get down to it, the UK is a founder member of the UNHRC and we're currently on the council until sometime this year from 2013. You don't really get to bend the rules when you're a founder member and council member of the human rights council, but it is better to have a law written expressing it too.
Unfortunately, along with many others I don't feel qualified to argue these points with confidence.
If the 'experts' are putting forward arguments on both sides which to the ears of the layman are equally convincing then what chance do we have of coming to an informed opinion?
I suspect for most people a gut feeling based on long held real or imagined beliefs will drive the referendum voting.
I keep hearing from the 'outers' that we would be free from the shackles of EU regulation which would in turn encourage more competition.
I don't think we need more competition and I don't think we need less regulation.
Whichever side of this debate you are on, there are going to be pros and cons. The problem is that there is a lack of hard evidence upon which to base a decision. The key factor is likely to be the economy but nobody can quantify the cost/benefit of being in the EU compared to the cost/benefit of being out of it. Numbers get thrown around but everyone has a different number and one which usually fits their agenda.
The problem for the UK is that, for most people, they are only in the EU for the economic benefits. For the most part, Brits don't want the Euro, they don't want Schengen, they don't want ever closer union, they are ambivalent on free movement of people, they are concerned about the democratic deficit associated with the EC and the ECJ and they don't really want to give up any more sovereignty. So it is really a question of whether the economic benefits outweigh the other stuff.
Whichever way the UK votes, the EU will need some serious reform if it is going to be fit for purpose over the next 50 years. It has grown too fast, has become too intrusive and all this without introducing any real democracy. It largely run by appointed officials who lack any democratic oversight or accountability. Right now this suits Germany, France and Benelux because, to a large extent, the EU is run for their benefit. That is unsustainable in the longer term. However, it is going to take an existential threat to force the EU to change. And the imminence of a Brexit might just be the threat it needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
