Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[AdrienIer]

I was suggesting that the same may be true of at least some countries in continental.

That's the point of a common agricultural policy : alone many countries can't feed their people without import, but together we can try to make the EU produce enough food for the EU. Which is pretty much the case right now.

 

[innonimatu]

The Brussels bureaucrats want more bureaucracy. That's hardly news. What pisses me off to no ends is that instead of a giant continent-wide movement to reform the EU in a different direction there is a giant continent-wide movement to destroy everything that's been done in the past 50 years.

There is a very clear movement against the loss of sovereignty. That does not mean "estouying everthing taht's been done in the past 50 years". The source of this ainti-EU sentiment is obvious: governments are disregading the desires of the people they govern, claiming "TINA": there is no alternative within the EU framework. And indeed as the EU stands there isn't. People get pissed when they figure out that their will is being disregarded. duh! Denying the evidence will only make them more pissed, that they're being treated as fools.

Yeah right. That's 4 billion a year compared to what you should be paying

I'm not british. And rebate or no rebate, the EU has always been a net contributor to the EU, that is the measure that matters for the argument I'm made.

How humane of you, I didn't realize that decolonization was desired by the British government. I'm sure Indian people feel the same

Take the time to learn some history. Winston Chuirchill and the conservatives were defeated in elections right after WW2 because the people of the UK wanted a government that would provide them with social services, instead ofspending most of the budgen in defense to hold on to the Empire. The decolonization of India resulted from that (Churchill was adamantly opposed).

You know, the UK had that outdated thing wrete elections really matteres and could lead to a big change of government and change of national policy. How conservative, isn't it? Clearly such a conspt is outdated now that we have the new European Empire.

Oh so you're jumping through decades now ? Because that "then" is a few decades later.

Again, learned some history. Harold Wilson oversaw the withdrawal from east of the Suez because it was too cconstry to maintain what remained of the British Empire there. The end of the British empire did not happen overnight, it did take some decades. Only after that the english decided to forego the former system of "imperial preference" that favored trade with their former colonies, and proposed (created) EFTA. The EEC kept growing and eventually absorbed most of the member countries of EFTA, leading the UK to join that organization, albeit reluctantly (and only after De Gaulle lost power).

Do you know what an empire is ?

Apparently you don't. You forget the small detail that an empire is, by definition, ruled by an emperor. The EU is well known for having no central authority.

Indeed I do. Do you know whan an oligarchy is? And was the roman republic, which ruled half the mediterranean, not an empire before they had their fist princeps? Did Athens not have an empire? Again, learn some history...

You're saying we can't build the EU democratically because there's no historical precedent ?

An empire has institutionalized relations of dependency between regions. That is the most defining characteristic of "empire". Not size per se, but inequality of power betwee its constituint political communities.
That is what the EU has. Is is no longer a diplomatic forum between sovereign nations because it has claimed and centralized powers that were part of that sovereignty. But is is an aggregation of different polities wielding different influence in the making of policy for the whole. The rulers and the interests of some polities/communities within the larger empire very clerarly dominate those of others.

Your rant about the Habsburg empire is totally irrelevant of course. You're forgetting the "tiny detail" that the Habsburg empire was actually an empire, an empire that was based on a decrepit system of nobility.

It was based on a decrepit bureaucracy that lacked both democratic legitimacy and the ability to give a positive answer to the desires of most of its communities.

 

[REDY]

If you will create hundreds of bureaucratic standards, protekcionist tariffs and you feed already fat cats by subsidies and market regulations than you have current situation. In current globalised world there is not any reason why would be agriculture treated differently than any other industry. And probably you would be suprised how many new national farmers would arise if they would have fair market.

 

[innonimatu]

whilst trying to keep all the benefits of remaining in the EU.

Does enyone actually know what exactly are those benefits?

In a world where severat trade agreements under the WTO essentially liberalized trade worldwide, what purpose does the EU serve for the UK?

 

[Arwon]

Well.

I remember filling in that 2011 census and refusing to answer the ethnicity question (as per my normal policy).

But strangely I have no recollection of the nationality question at all.

(Where's the box for people who can't remember things to tick?)

Although, come to think of it, the nationality of all British passport holders - strictly speaking - is British. And there isn't any other answer to give. (Except you can have dual-citizenship, I guess. But there certainly isn't any English passport to apply for.)

Or so I was told > 45 years ago: "When asked for your nationality on any forms you have to fill in, always reply "British"". Maybe it's all changed, I dunno.

Even so....

In the end I find it baffling that anyone can know, or can think that they know, that they really are English. Or any other ethnicity, come to that. If English even qualifies as an ethnicity.

Equally, I don't see why black people seem to think they can't be English - whether they like it or not.

That's citizenship. National identity is not the same as citizenship within a particular state. A nation is not the same as a state.

Also, to be honest what they were telling you in England 45 years ago probably reflects a pretty unevolved understanding of the difference between English and British and between nationality and citizenship. I mean, weren't you guys still coming to terms with losing all your colonies in 1970? It was 12 years since Suez, you still ruled territories in Africa, South America and the Pacific. Identity within the UK state would have been a pretty different question back then.

 

[Arakhor]

Does enyone actually know what exactly are those benefits?

In a world where severat trade agreements under the WTO essentially liberalized trade worldwide, what purpose does the EU serve for the UK?

A couple would be increased diplomatic and economic power worldwide, due to being part of the EU, as well as various legal protections for those of us at risk from the Tory policies that have led to the Minister of Work & Pensions allegedly needing a bodyguard when visiting those people whose benefits he is trying hard to butcher.

 

[innonimatu]

A couple would be increased diplomatic and economic power worldwide, due to being part of the EU, as well as various legal protections for those of us at risk from the Tory policies that have led to the Minister of Work & Pensions allegedly needing a bodyguard when visiting those people whose benefits he is trying hard to butcher.

I really, really don't think that you should count on the EU to protect social rights. If the UK had done the mistake of participating in the Euro its government would have been implementing far greater "austerity policies", which would disproportially affect the poorer sections of its population. The Tory government in the UK actually applied less "austerity" that the EU countries under the yoke of the ECB.

The increased diplomatic and economic power is often given as the raison d'etre for the EU. But no one explained exactly through which mechanism is that achieved for each member state of the EU. That the bigger EU negotiates for the entire EU does not mean that the interests of the population of each and every country that is member of it will be better defended. Case in point were the various trade deals made with China. The EU got to export more cars and machinery, while importing more cloting, white goods, consumer goods in general. German economy was particularly benefitted because os eas already oriented towards exports of machinery, the southern european countries were harmed because many of their main products competed with chinas' new exports. The trade deals done by the EU as a whole are not neutral among its member states. Likewise for its diplomatic interventions.

 

[Arakhor]

Admittedly, the ECHR and the EU aren't the same thing and one functions quite admirably without the other.

 

[Agent327]

I really, really don't think that you should count on the EU to protect social rights. If the UK had done the mistake of participating in the Euro its government would have been implementing far greater "austerity policies", which would disproportially affect the poorer sections of its population. The Tory government in the UK actually applied less "austerity" that the EU countries under the yoke of the ECB.

Firstly, the ECB doesn't dictate austerity policies. It has no means to do so, nor is it part of its task. By the same reasoning, national central banks would 'dictate economic polices': they do not.

Secondly, accepting the euro as currency has nothing to do with austerity policies, which are a matter of government decisions. What was agreed in the EC, was to limit the budget deficit - and even this in practice failed.

The increased diplomatic and economic power is often given as the raison d'etre for the EU. But no one explained exactly through which mechanism is that achieved for each member state of the EU. That the bigger EU negotiates for the entire EU does not mean that the interests of the population of each and every country that is member of it will be better defended. Case in point were the various trade deals made with China. The EU got to export more cars and machinery, while importing more cloting, white goods, consumer goods in general. German economy was particularly benefitted because os eas already oriented towards exports of machinery, the southern european countries were harmed because many of their main products competed with chinas' new exports. The trade deals done by the EU as a whole are not neutral among its member states.

I'm not quite sure what the argument here is. If 'increased diplomatic and economic power is often given as the raison d'etre for the EU' (which it never has), then your example proves that. If there were no EU, each country would have to negotiate independently with China for trade agreements. In which case some countries would have gotten a better deal than others. But that was not your point.

Likewise for its diplomatic interventions.

Which diplomatic interventions? The EU doesn't even have a common foreign policy outside of the purely economic sphere (and even then, as you yourself pointed out, interests vary).

Does enyone actually know what exactly are those benefits?

In a world where severat trade agreements under the WTO essentially liberalized trade worldwide, what purpose does the EU serve for the UK?

The WTO doesn't liberalize trade, it facilitates trade agreements. Which is a matter subject to national decisions. In fact, WTO negotiations haven't made any real progress since 2001, because of conflicting interests, mostly between developed and less developed nations.

If you will create hundreds of bureaucratic standards, protekcionist tariffs and you feed already fat cats by subsidies and market regulations than you have current situation. In current globalised world there is not any reason why would be agriculture treated differently than any other industry. And probably you would be suprised how many new national farmers would arise if they would have fair market.

Farming today tends to employ less than trade, services and industry. This has been a progressive trend since at least the 19th century, being one of the side effects of industrialization.

 

[Flying Pig]

Admittedly, the ECHR and the EU aren't the same thing and one functions quite admirably without the other.

The ECHR is really quite a good thing. It surprises me that most people can understand the logic of making the people who decide what constitutes an unacceptable breach of human rights different from the people with a vested interest in breaching those human rights - until that is applied to our own country, in which case they expect the government to always be totally honest and never make political hay out of mistreating those with little voice.

 

[Arakhor]

It came as no shock to me that Ian Duncan Smith wants out of Europe. It would certainly help him ruin the lives of the disabled and chronically ill more easily.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It came as no shock to me that Ian Duncan Smith wants out of Europe. It would certainly help him ruin the lives of the disabled and chronically ill more easily.

Ian Duncan Smith was one of the anti-Maastricht treaty rebels who opposed John Major.
His anti-European Union views long predate his current role of Minister for the DWP.

 

[Arakhor]

I remember that, yes.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Take the time to learn some history. Winston Chuirchill and the conservatives were defeated in elections right after WW2 because the people of the UK wanted a government that would provide them with social services, instead ofspending most of the budgen in defense to hold on to the Empire. The decolonization of India resulted from that (Churchill was adamantly opposed).

Quite so.

Having fought WW1 for, amongst other things, the independence of Belgium and
WW2 for the existence of Poland, the UK populace had no interest in opposing self
determination for India and keeping them in the Empire against their wishes.

There were other factors.

Both the superpowers (USA and the USSR) were very hypocritically hostile to the Empire.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Today, there is no more logic in subsidising the EU farming industry as there is the Steel and Coal industry (for example). Just maybe back in the early days of the EEC (50s and 60s) it made some sense, just not anymore. But what can be done – French farmers hold France and the EU to ransom with their tractors on motorways (not forgetting the burning of British trucks with live lambs) and not a lot gets done about it. The reason Britain gets a rebate is the CAP. Do away with that and our rebate will disappear. Simple.
Oh yes, and our food would become cheaper.

As for Scotland – let’s just forget this silly nonsense that “England hates the EU and Scotland loves it”. That is just not true – a recent survey found Scots were 60% Eurosceptic against 65% for Britain as a whole.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/24/euroscepticism-scotland-record-high

This does not, of course, mean it will translate into Scotland voting to leave. The Scots have always used the EU as an alternative to the UK – the only problem is, that alternative is becoming increasingly like a jump from the frying pan into the fire.
If the UK votes to leave (and yet Scotland votes to stay) Scotland will be in a very difficult position indeed.
At their 2014 vote they decided that because the Euro is such a dirty word, they would stick with the pound. With the pound leaving the EU, they would be forced to either adopt the Euro or create their own currency.
Now I suspect the Scots would rather become another shire of England than join the Euro, so I doubt if that would even be offered by the SNP.
And with the massive drop in the price of oil and the loss of their £5bn annual subsidy from British tax payers, I would be very surprised if another referendum is even called by Scotland.

That £5bn subsidy is a bit like Britain receiving £50bn from the EU – if we received that we would not even be having this vote.
And besides, in Scotland, a recent poll has just 47% in favour of independence (against 45% at the referendum).

Martin Kettle in the Guardian has put it much better than I ever could:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...it-vote-scotland-out-uk-scottish-independence

 

[classical_hero]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12174510/Young-womans-argument-for-Brexit-surprises-Question-Time-panel.html
This young lady does make an excellent point about the situation.

When asked by David Dimbleby, the presenter, what she would do she replied confidently:“I would get out of the EU so we could have a fair points-based system so we don’t favour people from outside the EU over people in the EU.

“Because we can have someone unskilled within Europe coming in without any questions but a really skilled doctor from India has to go through a really intensive process.”

Fellow audience members and even Mrs Truss could be seen nodding along during her comments, which was met with a round of applause.

 

[innonimatu]

I keep reading the "threat" of Scotland leaving the UK if people vote for leaving the EU.

But what would be the poing of demanding independence of Scotland if the new country was to immediately afterwards become a very peripheral region of an even bigger polity? From the frying pan into the fire indeed.

 

[Agent327]

That's not the issue. If a majority of UK voters approves a Brexit and a Scottish majority does not, there's every reason to expect a second independence referendum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12174510/Young-womans-argument-for-Brexit-surprises-Question-Time-panel.html
This young lady does make an excellent point about the situation.

This young lady apparently has no clue about the Schengen agreement.

 

[really]

This young lady apparently has no clue about the Schengen agreement.

The UK isn't a signatory to the Schengen agreement.

Schengen allows visa and passport free travel - it does not give a right to live and work.

Imagine if an independent Scotland was made join Schengen as a condition of membership and so had to impose border controls with England.

 

[Silurian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12174510/Young-womans-argument-for-Brexit-surprises-Question-Time-panel.html
This young lady does make an excellent point about the situation.

The young lady is most likely ignorant the low and unskilled British people working in the rest of the EU in return. Many young people work in bars in Spain and Greece after they finish school when they are 18. The bar owners like to employ British because they can speak to the British customers easily. Young Irish people will take these jobs. Many British people work on European construction site as displayed in such programs as Auf Wiedersehen, Pet.

From Wiki

Auf Wiedersehen, Pet (pronounced [ʔaʊ̯f ˈviːdɐˌzeːən pɛt], "Farewell, Pet") is a British comedy-drama television programme about seven British migrant construction workers. In the first series, the men live and work on a building site in Düsseldorf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auf_Wiedersehen,_Pet



From The Guardian

For David Sketchley, the Conservative government’s promise to move forward with the referendum is exasperating. “I’m a bit fed up, to be honest.”

A resident of the southern Spanish province of Cádiz since 1992, he is particularly frustrated by the possibility that he may not even be able to vote because the government’s referendum bill excludes expats who have been abroad for more than 15 years.

Sketchley points to Conservative politician Norman Tebbit’s remarks in 1981 about his unemployed father getting on his bike to look for work. “I came over here to work because I couldn’t find any work in the UK,” says Sketchley, 60, who now works as a tour manager. “I did what he said, and I feel I’m being punished.”

If Britain voted to leave the EU, his options would be limited to marrying his Spanish girlfriend or asking for residency, he says. “I’ve been here for more than 10 years, so I do have a right to nationality, but I’ve heard it takes approximately three years to get that done. What do I do in the meantime? Do I have to get a work permit in the meantime?”

He bristles at the idea of becoming a Spanish national: “I don’t want Spanish nationality, I want British nationality. I’m British. Why are they putting us through all this?”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-seeking-second-passport-europe-eu-referendum

Some numbers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm