Europe should we stay in or get out?

[KM-Tiger]

The fact remains that if we do leave the EU, it's effectively a vote to join the EEA

We don't have to join the EEA, sometimes called the "Norway option", so to argue that as a reason for remaining in the EU is plain wrong.

We don't have to join anything on exit, though we could if the terms were right. Cameron is going to have to go whatever the outcome, so we are going to get a new govt anyway. If they do not have what it takes to work on behalf of the British people, then we have an election in 2020.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

We don't have to join the EEA, sometimes called the "Norway option", so to argue that as a reason for remaining in the EU is plain wrong.

But we will. That's my point.

The vast majority of MPs in Parliament are pro-EU. Our Government will naturally do all they can to avoid disrupting the status quo and risking years of inevitable uncertainty which will heavily impact the financial markets, inward investment and our economy overall.

The EEA is by far the fastest and easiest route to retaining the single market and the regulations which our businesses are intertwined with, as shifting the rules causes a headache for businesses which cost time, money and resources, whilst scaring away external investment due to the uncertainty.

So when that vote inevitably comes to Parliament, with the majority of Tory MPs, almost all Labour MPs and almost all SNP MPs backing the EU, what do you think is going to happen?

There's a big difference between what should happen and what will happen. After the EU Referendum, all of the Brexit supporters across the UK suddenly have zero power, and it's all shifted to the majority pro-EU Government when it comes to what to do next.

The same goes with the uncertainty damaging our economy. Let's say leaving the EU actually does end up being more prosperous for us (although I really don't think it will). Good luck convincing businesses of that in the interim.

People and companies with financial strength hate uncertainty and get spooked easily. You see it in the stock market every day. They will hold back just because they do not know what the future holds, and the quickest way to resolve that uncertainty is the EEA.

 

[garyk]

The vast majority of MPs in Parliament are pro-EU. Our Government will naturally do all they can to avoid disrupting the status quo and risking years of inevitable uncertainty which will heavily impact the financial markets, inward investment and our economy overall.

Trouble is staying in will not be the 'status quo' and thats the single biggest misconception. With Albania and Turkey and other countries poised to join the EU even as we know it today it will change.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Trouble is staying in will not be the 'status quo' and thats the single biggest misconception. With Albania and Turkey and other countries poised to join the EU even as we know it today it will change.

Turkey won't join. They won't even come close.

Turkey are far away from even meeting the EU requirements to gain visa-free travel for temporary stays (which, by the way, is in the Schengen Area only, which we are not a part of).

On the 33 chapters of EU legislation to actually join the EU, Turkey are miles away when it comes to certain chapters, especially those involving human rights and press freedom.

Davutoglu, the pro-EU Prime Minister who has been pushing towards EU membership, is also set to resign shortly, leaving Erdogan to continue to increase his grip on power and undermine human rights.

Only this month, Erdogan has refused to change the laws required for visa-free travel, and said to the EU, and I quote, "We'll go our way, you go yours".

Then you have the situation regarding how EU membership is granted. All member states must vote unanimously in favour of a new EU member before they can join, meaning that only a single member can veto the entire thing.

Germany has long been an opponent of Turkey's membership, and Turkey continues to refuse to recognise the Republic of Cyprus as a nation. The vast majority of the public across the EU are also not in favour.

When it comes to Albania, they are much further behind than even Turkey in meeting all the necessary chapters for EU membership. It will be at least another 10-15 years before they're even close.

However, with a population of only 2.8million and a high Human Development Index, along with universal healthcare, free education and a respectable mid-level economy, any effects of their membership are likely to be strongly overstated.

Believe it or not, there aren't many people out there in rather comfortable countries who are eager to quit their jobs, pack their bags, leave their friends, leave their family, take their comparatively little money and move to an alien country with a completely different language and culture. The cost of living in Albania is considerably less than it is in other EU countries. It's all relative.

Interestingly, the number of Poles living elsewhere in the EU peaked around 2007, and has since actually gone down. That's right. Many immigrants from "poorer" countries have moved abroad to places like the UK, Italy and Germany, and then decided to return back home.

 

[simon field]

Why keep on about politicians?

They are a tiny minority, as are the heads of large corporations. They like 'power'.

I find it highly amusing that the more scare tactics they pump out on a daily basis, the more it seems to be having the opposite effect of their desires, after all it is just propaganda. It is my belief that the majority of people in this country don't want any part of it, but sadly, enough of them will be frightened into voting 'in' or will not bother to vote at all.

As a family man and micro-business owner I no longer wish to fund the paper-pushing, regulation vomiting elites who seek to preserve what they have done for themselves and their friends. I don't see why I'd want my children governed by another feeble layer of pointlessness. It's as simple as that, really.

Either way, it's getting exciting now, eh?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Why keep on about politicians?

They are a tiny minority, as are the heads of large corporations. They like 'power'.

That makes it all the more credible when so many politicians and heads of large corporations want us to stay in the EU, considering that leaving the EU would actually give them more power and control over our country.

Never in my life have I seen a situation where all of the major political parties agree on something so naturally polarising, and especially when they agree on something which takes power and control out of their own hands.

 

[simon field]

My business uses glassfibre matting. We could get a good deal (and a better product) by buying it from China.

Until the EU decided they wanted more money so slapped a levy on it, making it more costly for us to do so. How is that not just unfair (what on earth has it got to do with them?) and just plain greedy?

 

[Cobby]

As a family man and micro-business owner I no longer wish to fund the paper-pushing, regulation vomiting elites who seek to preserve what they have done for themselves and their friends.

I find it fascinating how many in the 'out' camp say this without a shred of awareness of the irony; you have just described the currently sitting UK government, i.e. the people who you'd be 'funding' were we to leave the EU. o_0

 

[simon field]

Damn straight dude. We already have it, right here.

Does that mean we should also have loads more of it, somewhere else?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Damn straight dude. We already have it, right here.

Does that mean we should also have loads more of it, somewhere else?

I honestly find the EU democratic system more reasonable, fair and trustworthy than our own Parliament.

It's consists of 28 members, each an entirely different country, spanning left to the right of the political spectrum. Each has a vote, with a majority required and a minority veto available.

It's 28 members, all with such varying political views, coming together to pass legislation which is for the greater good of the EU and the members within it.

Now compare this to the UK Government, where a single party with a single left or right ideology can hold a majority in Parliament and pass any laws they please which fit their narrow view.

Sure, the public is able to vote new Governments in, but that's every 4 years, and politicians are more than capable of back-pedalling on promises whilst making huge swathes of changes within every 4 year period.

When you think about it, the council of all 28 members really provides a fairer and more inclusive representation of everyone: rich, poor, left, right and everyone else.

In my view, the results speak for themselves. The vast majority of laws and regulations I find detrimental to the lives of British people do in fact come directly from our own British Government.

 

[simon field]

In my view, the results speak for themselves. The vast majority of laws and regulations I find detrimental to the lives of British people do in fact come directly from our own British Government.

Which British people though Scott? And in whose perception?

I can't work it out. Tonight I've had a leaflet through the door from someone called 'The Electoral Commission' which tells me 'All I need to know about the EU referendum'. It gives a summary of the arguments from both sides. Both state facts, as they see them.

Ok, so can we say that there are two sets of beliefs, from opposing sides, and that we should attach our own beliefs to those which strike more of a chord with us, personally and then vote accordingly?

Or is it nicer to vote on someone else's behalf - you know, the downtrodden of the place who can't decide for themselves what's best for them?

You for instance - are you going to vote from a personal standpoint, one which benefits the human race globally , those just in the EU, or do they just happen to be one and the same?

 

[sirearl]

Stay or leave?

Don't think it will make much difference,the real damage was done long ago.

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-11-27/tonight-who-owns-britain/

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Which British people though Scott? And in whose perception?

Those hit hard by austerity measures, for a start. The vulnerable, the disabled, our education system and also our NHS, just to name a few.

Let's not also forget that the NHS is heavily dependent on doctors and nurses from the EU. They are not "taking jobs". They are filling a vital gap which is exacerbated by poorer pay and huge tuition fees for British students - both caused by our own Government.

A letter from George Osborne to constituents in 2003 has recently came to light in which he called £3,000 per year tuition fees "very unfair" and a "tax on learning". He was then a pivotal part of our current Government tripling those fees to £9,000 per year.

I'm actually rather grateful for a number of pieces of EU legislation which protect workers rights, our environment and other things whilst helping to fund science and research for our future. Legislation which the UK Government is not allowed to touch. With legislation being voted on by 28 separate countries, including the UK, in a mutually-beneficial system for all, it's somewhat of a safety net and far less likely to lean towards one extreme side which satisfies one political party's ideologies.

You for instance - are you going to vote from a personal standpoint, one which benefits the human race globally , those just in the EU, or do they just happen to be one and the same?

At this stage I'm focusing on logical points which benefit the UK as my country.

However, overall, I simply think that such cooperation benefits the EU and the world as a whole. It's not perfect, it has its ups and downs, but isolation is not the answer.

There are people alive today who were around when Europe was one of the most divided and hostile continents on the planet. Now we are working together with a shared interest more than we ever have in history.

Given all of human history, some of it quite recent, the fact we have 28 countries of so many different cultures and views working together in this way really has to be admired.

 

[Cobby]

Damn straight dude. We already have it, right here.

Does that mean we should also have loads more of it, somewhere else?

So it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but you'd vote for the version where you're at risk of more extreme ideologies, just for the sake of your national ego?

 

[simon field]

I have no national ego! I'm not in the slightest bit 'patriotic', I don't see this as my country, I just happened to have been born here.

And what extreme ideologies am I at risk of? Will I need to adopt them or can I just reject them?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I have no national ego! I'm not in the slightest bit 'patriotic', I don't see this as my country, I just happened to have been born here.

And what extreme ideologies am I at risk of? Will I need to adopt them or can I just reject them?

The left and right of the political spectrum.

Take the Conservatives, for example. Their right wing approach to politics has resulted in the privatisation of our schools and the NHS. Whether you agree with that or not, it is simply the result of the party's political stance.

Future governments may move further left and further right in the decades to come, and if such governments have a majority, they will be free to pass any laws they please based on their political ideologies.

The EU legislation process, by comparison, is much fairer and balanced. It's not one political party where its members can collude with each other. It's 28 separate countries, all with varying political views, voting together to pass laws for the benefit of the EU and its members.

Is it perfect? No, but no political system really is. All I know is that, due to its very nature, it is not something to be feared and is something which can be beneficial to us.

And on the topic British "sovereignty", let's be clear that the UK Government does still hold huge powers over laws which impact our daily lives, and the UK has multiple opt-outs (more than any other EU country).

Either way though, we'll never have full sovereignty even if we leave. To retain single market access to the EU, we will still have to abide by many regulations. Trade-offs, agreements and commitments are part and parcel of a cooperative society which ultimately benefits us in many ways. Complete isolation does not exist (unless you want the country to be irreparably damaged, of course).

 

[KM-Tiger]

To retain single market access to the EU, we will still have to abide by many regulations.

Only for those exporting to the EU, which I gather is 5% of UK businesses. Same as any other exports, you have to abide by the customer's rules if you want to sell to them.

 

[KM-Tiger]

I've seen it announced today that elements of the British Army will come under the command of the European Council from 1st July.

Does anyone really want this unelected govt to have the ability to start a war?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Only for those exporting to the EU, which I gather is 5% of UK businesses. Same as any other exports, you have to abide by the customer's rules if you want to sell to them.

Companies cannot pick and choose which regulations they have to abide by.

The UK has a regulatory framework in place which spans all businesses. To retain access to the single market, the UK will have to retain much of these regulations, just as Norway and Switzerland have done, which apply across the board.

It can't be surprising. A key element of the single market involves all members sharing a common framework and legal system. This means that wherever trade flows, it can rely on the same system and structure. It makes trade far easier and seamless, which is why it's called a single market.

You cannot have a single market if one area has different regulations to the other. It would be like Manchester, for example, having different regulations to the rest of England.

Plus, the UK wouldn't dare change any regulations anyway. All British businesses have developed with those regulations and become intertwined with them over many decades. Any changes require affected industries to adapt, which would cost billions.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Does anyone really want this unelected govt to have the ability to start a war?

We've had this for many, many decades with NATO.

With the principle of collective defence, we are obliged to defend any other NATO member.

Our Government has already pledged to commit 3,000 personnel to NATO's Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, as well.

 

[KM-Tiger]

To retain access to the single market, the UK will have to retain much of these regulations

Does China abide by all EU regulations to sell to EU countries?

 

[KM-Tiger]

We've had this for many, many decades with NATO.

NATO is a treaty between sovereign states, not an autonomous power.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Does China abide by all EU regulations to sell to EU countries?

No, but China doesn't have access to the single market. If they were to negotiate an FTA eventually, then the EU and China would still have to make sure that a lot of their regulations align.

At the end of the day, the rules are the rules. It's the EEA's single market, bound by EU regulations, and a key stipulation of full, unrestricted membership is to abide by EU regulations as a key single market principle.

If China hypothetically wanted to join the EEA/EU single market, you can bet that they'd have to abide by the same regulations as well.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

NATO is a treaty between sovereign states, not an autonomous power.

Not quite.

Our own British Government has committed thousands of troops and resources to NATO already. NATO is governed by theNorth Atlantic Council.

The key difference, of course, is that the NAC has no formal voting or majority decision process. It is based on a rather flexible and informal concept of "common accord".

The UK is obliged by the treaty to defend any country which is also a NATO member. That decision is out of our hands. If we are called to fight, we fight. There is no sovereignty in that, and it's been going on since 1949.

 

[Landyj]

The more I think about this the more on the fence I feel. I've always wanted a vote on in or out , in fact it was a big push to voting Tory last time round and being from a former mining town that took some doing. After years of just wanting out its only now I'm having doubts and its from a strange point really. I don't believe for one minute that the uk can't cope if we leave. I don't know what exact effect an out vote will have on our economy or house prices etc but whatever the % of up down the uk and its people will deal with it. Politicians seem to have developed amazing powers of prediction recently when the truth is they can only guess at multiple outcomes. The point that is worrying me is not the uk but will the eu survive a brexit.? There are some pretty worrying movements towards nationalist and the right due to various economic and migration issues at the minute and I wonder if our leaving would trigger more in out referendums. It's the fallout from those that may effect us more. Anyhow that's how I'm dithering at the moment. the one thing that leans me slightly more towards out however is a quote from an old bloke in the pub last week " the labour leader says vote in, as dos the leader of the conservatives. In the 50 odd years I've been voting at least one of em is a liar "

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I don't know what exact effect an out vote will have on our economy or house prices etc but whatever the % of up down the uk and its people will deal with it.

I frequently hear this point and it's one I don't understand.

The vast majority of experts, think tanks and businesses believe that the UK will be worse off if we leave.

That's backed by straightforward logic as well. We would be creating considerable uncertainty and shaking up the structure which thousands of British businesses are heavily intertwined with.

Even many Brexit supporters seem to believe that the UK will be worse off, but their responses are that we'll "deal with it" and "ride it out".

I would understand the EU debate a little more if we were willing to sacrifice the benefits of the EU and take the damage it would cause because there is a clear post-EU path which gives us tangible ways of being stronger, safer and better off.

The resulting reward, if there is one, must cancel out the detrimental impacts plus more to give us a "net" improvement, but there's just nothing. Even leading Brexit supporters have differing opinions on what we should do after we leave.

There is no clear plan, and many of the ideas discussed by anti-EU folk would never see the light of day because we have an overwhelming pro-EU Parliament which would ultimately be making the decisions.

Then you have the "patriotic" Brexit supporters who simply care about the principle of control, regardless of any damage an exit from the EU would cause. This is a fallacy, as in such a connected and integrated world where we trade and work with the countries around us, we will never, ever have complete control with the ability to do anything we want.

 

[Newchodge]

I also worry about the number of Brexit 'supporters' who see an out vote as a way to negotiate a better deal for UK within Europe. I think Gove and Boris are in this camp. Problem is that there is no guarantee of any further negotiations. EU can and may just say 'piss off then'.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I also worry about the number of Brexit 'supporters' who see an out vote as a way to negotiate a better deal for UK within Europe. I think Gove and Boris are in this camp. Problem is that there is no guarantee of any further negotiations. EU can and may just say 'piss off then'.

I don't trust Boris Johnson's intentions at all. Brexit gives the UK Government more control than they've ever had in decades, and he's the one who is strongly rumoured to be wanting to run for Prime Minister one day.

If we do leave the EU, and Boris eventually becomes Prime Minister, he would hold more power than any PM over the past 40 years.

 

[KM-Tiger]

If we do leave the EU, and Boris eventually becomes Prime Minister, he would hold more power than any PM over the past 40 years.

And as voters we would have the power to remove him.

 

[Newchodge]

But not soon enough to prevent the damage.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

And as voters we would have the power to remove him.

After four years. A Government can do an awful lot in that time.

But that wasn't really my point. My point is that Boris' intentions regarding his anti-EU stance cannot be trusted at all. He has ulterior motives.

I find it bizarre when people don't trust the pro-EU stance of David Cameron or other MPs, yet they trust Boris Johnson's anti-EU stance when he potentially has the most to gain from it personally.

Current Government ministers, advocating a position where they will ultimately have less power and control, really says a lot.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

On another note, I've noticed that not many people have considered the true impact on migration if we do leave the EU.

If we vote out, it will take years to officially exit the European Union, and during that time, all of the normal EU rules will still apply. Plus, it's virtually certain that any EU migrants currently in the UK will be allowed to stay.

As a result, that would be the last opportunity for people of other EU nations to come to the UK to live here, so there would be a massive, unprecedented spike of EU migration in the run-up to the formal exit.

People who usually weren't so keen or fully convinced of coming to the UK will be pressured into taking the leap, because if they miss it, they literally will not have another chance again in their lifetimes. It would be now or never.

Similarly, current EU migrants in the UK who may have considered moving back home or elsewhere will be pressured into staying, as once they leave, they can't get back in.

If we do leave, I think people voting for Brexit purely on the basis of migrant control will be in for quite a shock.

 

[KM-Tiger]

But not soon enough to prevent the damage.

Then we need to look at the democratic system we have and whether it serves us well in the 21st century.

This and other writings by Carswell and Dan Hannan shed some light on that.

 

[KM-Tiger]

If we do leave, I think people voting for Brexit purely on the basis of migrant control will be in for quite a shock.

Then it's not unreasonable to expect the govt to take sensible measures to prevent this, or you are just caving in to Project Fear.

That it's possible for there to be an "unprecedented spike of EU migration" describes exactly why we should get out.

On that subject, if we do remain, then what are your ideas for govt policy for housing, schools, the NHS etc, given that the govt will have no idea how many EU citizens will decide to move to the UK region in the next 5 years or 10 years.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Then it's not unreasonable to expect the govt to take sensible measures to prevent this, or you are just caving in to Project Fear.

A more accurate name for "Project Fear" would be "Project being aware of credible and likely concerns to take action accordingly instead of blindly ignoring them", but I suppose that doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well.

That it's possible for there to be an "unprecedented spike of EU migration" describes exactly why we should get out.

Not really. This whole situation would only arise because Brexit would add an element of scarcity and time restriction, otherwise it's never a situation to worry about.

On that subject, if we do remain, then what are your ideas for govt policy for housing, schools, the NHS etc, given that the govt will have no idea how many EU citizens will decide to move to the UK region in the next 5 years or 10 years.

Well, the NHS relies heavily on EU workers to meet staffing requirements, so I'd dread to think of the condition of the NHS if we didn't have that. There are 130,000 EU nationals working in the NHS, including doctors and nurses, and it is STILL understaffed. These are people who treat me, you and our families.

Let's not also forget that, under EU rules, the NHS can claim back the cost of treatment from any person's country of residence.

There is also the knock-on effect if the UK economy takes a hit, and a recession is far, far more damaging to the NHS than anything else.

This is why you have the NHS chief coming out and saying that Brexit would be bad for the NHS:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...simon-stevens-brexit-dangerous-health-service

As for migration to the UK, I wouldn't worry. Thanks to the EU, poor nations economies are developing rapidly. For example, Poland is set to grow 3.7% this year, Romania is set to grow 4.2%, whilst the UK is only set to grow 1.8%.

And this is despite migration usually increasing economic growth due to a larger workforce and higher spending.

Plus, the largest source of inward migration to the UK at the moment is actually from non-EU countries, which the UK has full control over.

Finally, let's not forget the 1.2million recorded British people who have exercised the right to free movement by relocating to other EU countries.

Spain has around 380,000 registered Britons living there, but when you factor in non-registered Britons, the figure is closer to one million. That's far more than the number of Polish people living in the UK.

A survey conducted in 2005 also showed that a third of British immigrants in the UK rarely or never meet Spanish people, and over 60% don't speak good Spanish. There has also been a surge in British children attending Spanish schools.

Then you have a recent popular interview from a woman called Joan, a UK migrant living in Spain, who said that we should leave the EU because of UK immigration...

 

[KM-Tiger]

After four years. A Government can do an awful lot in that time.

So you are arguing that imperfections in our democracy are a good reason for having none at all?

 

[simon field]

What about the state of the roads? Surely there are 'EU directives' meaning that something as basic as a road must meet certain standards?

Not sure what they're like where you live, but they're being ignored round here I can tell you!

 

[KM-Tiger]

Well, the NHS relies heavily on EU workers to meet staffing requirements, so I'd dread to think of the condition of the NHS if we didn't have that.

There is no reason to think that cannot continue.

A more pertinent question is why we are not training more of our own citizens. Thousands of applications for nursing training are turned down because of limits on numbers while the shortage in the NHS persists.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

So you are arguing that imperfections in our democracy are a good reason for having none at all?

No. You're missing my point. I originally stated that because Boris Johnson's intentions regarding his anti-EU stance can't be trusted when he has ulterior motives to gain more power if he eventually becomes Prime Minister one day.

Although I do think that many positive things from the EU being protected from austerity cuts are a good thing.

And we do have democracy. The UK has a large vote and big influence in EU legislation due to its size, as we have the third largest population and thus the 3rd largest voting weight out of the entire EU.

We also hold MEP elections within our own country to elect the 73 Members of the European Parliament which represent us.

Democracy exists either way. It's just the scope which is changed. People in the city of Manchester, for example, could complain that the democratic structure is unfair because people in Newcastle and London have a say in the laws and regulations which affect their city.

It's the exact same argument as yours, except the scope and range are changed to a more specific audience.

No matter what we do, the EU will always play a considerable role in our own country. We are heavily intertwined. I'd much rather we retain our power and influence in this system instead of leaving and still accepting regulations, but this time without any say at all.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

A more pertinent question is why we are not training more of our own citizens. Thousands of applications for nursing training are turned down because of limits on numbers while the shortage in the NHS persists.

Two reasons:

1). Funding cuts and lower wages are making the healthcare sector a less attractive industry to work in than ever before.

2). A substantial increase in education costs.

Both of these are caused by our current UK Government, not the EU.

If someone wants to become a doctor in the UK, they will first have to attend medical school, which on average leaves graduated students with £40,000 to £80,000 worth of student debt.

The base salary of a junior doctor is £22,800 per year. This is under the UK's average salary of £26,500.

Tell me, why would young people want to spend up to 10 years in education and saddle themselves with so much debt to gain an entry level job where they earn less than the UK average and have to work under deteriorating conditions and huge pressure?

Many people want to become doctors and nurses because they want to help people, but even the motivation from that has its limits.

We rely heavily on the EU for skilled doctors, nurses and care workers to meet the shortfall. As cuts continue and the population ages further, this reliance will only grow.