Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Agent327]

But if the Syrian refugees are still in Turkey in ten years time and Turkey is in the EU, then Turkey would have a strong motivation to give them Turkish nationality so they could travel as Turks to other EU countries thereby relieving Turkey of hosting their guests. This would mean that the other EU countries would have paid money to keep them out but end up still receiving them which would be a reason for them not to let Turkey in the EU which would itself be a reason for Turkey not to proceed with the deal.

I remember that in the days of the Ottoman Empire (prior to 1918); Syria was part of that Empire and so they shared the same citizenship.

But many of the migrants are not from Syria.

Which kind of undermines the whole argument. Apart from it being highly unlikely that

a) Turkey would give refugees Turkish citizenship (for one, they're generally not Turks)

b) Turkey being a EU member in 10 years

plus the fact of Britain not even being part of a refugee deal (nor of Schengen).

 

[Borachio]

But if the Syrian refugees are still in Turkey in ten years time and Turkey is in the EU, then Turkey would have a strong motivation to give them Turkish nationality so they could travel as Turks to other EU countries thereby relieving Turkey of hosting their guests. This would mean that the other EU countries would have paid money to keep them out but end up still receiving them which would be a reason for them not to let Turkey in the EU which would itself be a reason for Turkey not to proceed with the deal.

I remember that in the days of the Ottoman Empire (prior to 1918); Syria was part of that Empire and so they shared the same citizenship.

But many of the migrants are not from Syria.

All gets horribly complicated I think.

It does get horribly complicated, I agree.

But politics is notoriously concerned with the short term, I think. And politicians seem to be almost exclusively concerned with getting themselves (re-)elected.

 

[Agent327]

It usually helps to un-complicate things by getting facts right. And the best way of getting reelected would seem to be doing one's job right. (Of course, when being a politician people can never seem to agree on when one does one's job right...)

 

[innonimatu]

The issue of Turkey's transit of refugees, or even of turks with visas, is an example of the kind of entanglement that comes with the EU. But it's not really the important issue for the future. Consider there issues:
- The failure of the free transit of people clauses of the EU: moving to live in another country only works so long as the migration remains relatively small, otherwise the open borders turn out not to be so open. So much for relocating people inside the EU.
- Loss of sovereignty concerting foreign deals, and the irrelevance of single countries inside the EU. Turkey occupies part of Cyprus and yet the cypriot government will be forced to accept deals to the benefit of its enemy, without getting any concession in return. This overturns past promises that had been made to the cypriots. Might makes right, with the aggravation that the less powerful are bound by treaty to obey the more powerful.


I would still like to see good arguments for the UK staying inside the EU. Come on, can we make this a thread with useful content or not? What is the stay campaign presenting as positive contributions of the EU to the UK?

 

[Agent327]

The issue of Turkey's transit of refugees, or even of turks with visas, is an example of the kind of entanglement that comes with the EU.

No, it doesn't. It comes from bombing countries such as Libya, Iraq and Syria. None of which has anything to do with 'the EU', but all the more with NATO. So leave NATO already.

But it's not really the important issue for the future.

Good to know. But at least get the facts right.

Consider there issues:
- The failure of the free transit of people clauses of the EU: moving to live in another country only works so long as the migration remains relatively small, otherwise the open borders turn out not to be so open. So much for relocating people inside the EU.

You are aware that, for instance, the largest Turkish population outside of Turkey lives in Germany. So you are arguing 'that doesn't work'. I'm not sure why, as these German Turks have been living in Germany for decades now. so what 'doesn't work' exactly? Incidentally, a large part of UK immigration has been from its former colonies - whcih is another issue entirely unrelated to the EU.

- Loss of sovereignty concerting foreign deals, and the irrelevance of single countries inside the EU. Turkey occupies part of Cyprus and yet the cypriot government will be forced to accept deals to the benefit of its enemy, without getting any concession in return.

Greek Cyprus was actually blocking the current refugee deal with Turkey - even though they have very little to do with it. If anything that proves the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

I would still like to see good arguments for the UK staying inside the EU. Come on, can we make this a thread with useful content or not? What is the stay campaign presenting as positive contributions of the EU to the UK?

Personally I'd like to see a good argument for the UK leaving the EU, as so far I haven't seen a single one that holds up or is even close to being accurate. But as to your question, which you apparently missed already having been answered, the UK has been profiting from the EU market for decades. Not so much as France or Germany, but then again France and Germany have been members longer. There really isn't any economic argument for leaving the EU. Which leaves such vagaries as 'loss of sovereignty'. The UK isn't Greek Cyprus, and Greek Cyprus hasn't even seen such 'loss of sovereignty'. What is called 'loss of sovereignty' is actually the normal procedure when joining a federation of independent nations such as the EU is. Common decisions (even common decisions in Parliament) require compromises. Whcih si quite something else than 'loss of sovereignty'. and if you're concerned about any 'loss of sovereignty' you shouldn't have joined in the first place But you are free to leave at any time. Considering the vigorous debate this matter has actually engendered, it remains to be seen if such a leave will actually benefit Britain. Opinions differ widely on that, and probably for good reason, as to a large extent it's simply a leap into the dark.

 

[EnglishEdward]

No, it doesn't. It comes from bombing countries such as Libya, Iraq and Syria. None of which has anything to do with 'the EU', but all the more with NATO. So leave NATO already.

IIRC the Syrian civil war was not caused by bombing Syria. The Saudis and other meddlers encouraged
the revolt when they should have encouraged (bribed with aid) the regime to quietly reform.

Personally I'd like to see a good argument for the UK leaving the EU, as so far I haven't seen a single one that holds up or is even close to being accurate. But as to your question, which you apparently missed already having been answered, the UK has been profiting from the EU market for decades.

This profiteering is frequently stated, but I have never seen any rigorous evidence.

Not so much as France or Germany, but then again France and Germany have been members longer. There really isn't any economic argument for leaving the EU. Which leaves such vagaries as 'loss of sovereignty'. The UK isn't Greek Cyprus, and Greek Cyprus hasn't even seen such 'loss of sovereignty'. What is called 'loss of sovereignty' is actually the normal procedure when joining a federation of independent nations such as the EU is. Common decisions (even common decisions in Parliament) require compromises. Whcih si quite something else than 'loss of sovereignty'. and if you're concerned about any 'loss of sovereignty' you shouldn't have joined in the first place But you are free to leave at any time. Considering the vigorous debate this matter has actually engendered, it remains to be seen if such a leave will actually benefit Britain.

Your perspective seem to be that the UK is already in the EU. That is the status quo and it is up to leavers to justify leaving.
I am not going to argue with the validity of that perspective particularly for those younger than myself as it is not unreasonable.

However I, and others, have quite different perspectives.

Firstly I was born 60 years ago a citizen of a largely independent country (the UK) and unlike the French etc, I was never given
the opportunity to vote in a referendum as to whether to join the EU. The nearest thing we had to a referendum was the election
for the European Parliament which if you may remember was in terms of the UK vote won by the UKIP. I do not believe that
my decision to vote should be prejudiced by the fact that both John Major and Tony Blair chose to proceed forwards with the
EU without a UK referendum because they knew very well that they would have lost a referendum.

Secondly I regard the current position as an untenable half way house i.e. in so much as the UK has its
own currency, military; it is in reality only half in the EU anyway.

Opinions differ widely on that, and probably for good reason, as to a large extent it's simply a leap into the dark.

To many of us staying in the EU is equally a leap in the dark.

I.e. The EU Court ruled in June 2015 that 5% VAT on energy efficiency for the over 60s in the UK is illegal.
Apart from the fact that this conflicts with the setting of targets to move to a low carbon economy
(which Tony Blair signed up to because he hoped to be EU President in itself damaged the UK steel industry)
these decisions undermine the ability of the UK government to move the UK economy forward.

IIRC in the USA, individual states may separately have or not have their own sales tax.

A benefit of leaving the EU is that we can decided such matters for ourselves.

 

[Silurian]

IIRC in the USA, individual states may separately have or not have their own sales tax.

A benefit of leaving the EU is that we can decided such matters for ourselves.

from BBC

Chancellor George Osborne increased VAT from 17.5% to 20% and cut welfare spending as he moved "decisively" to tackle Britain's record debts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10371590

As part of the EU the UK decides what items are in what VAT rate bands.

Do you think that the UK would go to the expense of introducing a different form of sales tax if it left the EU. How many billions would that cost. Obviously the UK would be able to decide on its own what items were in each band.

 

[EnglishEdward]

from BBC


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10371590

As part of the EU the UK decides what items are in what VAT rate bands.

Then why are the conservatives congratulating themselves on getting the EU (all other member states) to let them apply a 0% tax rate for women's tampons?

Do you think that the UK would go to the expense of introducing a different form of sales tax if it left the EU. How many billions would that cost. Obviously the UK would be able to decide on its own what items were in each band.

It only costs millions/billions/zillions because the UK government has volunteered itself to be a hostage to outsourced ICT service providers. I hope that they are not doing that for the sugar in soft drinks levy.

 

[Arakhor]

Then why are the conservatives congratulating themselves on getting the EU (all other member states) to let them apply a 0% tax rate for women's tampons?

Because we originally negotiated a rate of 5% for tampons, instead of 15%. Having the power to agree things within a group doesn't mean that you get to break those agreements unilaterally if you feel so inclined.

 

[innonimatu]

Because we originally negotiated a rate of 5% for tampons, instead of 15%. Having the power to agree things within a group doesn't mean that you get to break those agreements unilaterally if you feel so inclined.

So if the group never agrees to negotiate again, you are stuck with what you ready negotiates with it.

What this means is, more generally, that one you relinquish a power to the EU, you can never claim it back. It is forever taken from the poll of thinks the british people can democratically decide on. They will be subject to veto power from parties that are completely outside their control.

Unless they exercise their sovereign power to denounce the treaty binding them to this state of affairs and leave the EU. They they can negotiate whatever the wish, But they will have the power do decide, in any future election, that a negotiated issue should be changed. and actually change it. This is the difference between having sovereignty, or being a territory that must consent to something (except in the increasing areas where "majority voting" will be used in the EU) but then never again gets the freedom to change what it allowed once.

You really don't get it that you are abdicating a fundamental, essential, portion of democracy, do you? You don't thing it is relevant, you trust that it will all be ok because people will be reasonable, things will be sorted out...

They won't. Power is as power always was. Democracy without sovereignty is an empty shell that eventually loses all public trust. If the EU endures, in the path is is going on, democracy will be destroyed in Europe. It must be, for this EU to endure. I don't think it can be, and we'll have a generalized war when it becomes obvious it's happening. It would be far better if people understood that, averted that future, before it becomes too late.

 

[Arakhor]

You're a cheerful fellow, aren't you? Europe will descend into war because... the EU. Right.

 

[innonimatu]

You're a cheerful fellow, aren't you? Europe will descend into war because... the EU. Right.

Yes. Far from being a forum for cooperation and for bringing together the people from the several countries of Europe, it's been dividing them. It has spawn a number of crisis and encouraged blame-throwing. And people will "the ones outside" when they no longer feel in control of their future. The think democracy does, the stabilizing effect it has (though it it not fool-proof) is that people accept that what befalls their country is a product of past choices they made. No foreigner to blame, at least a portion of the responsibility rests with the national community. No point in demanding revenge, rather a change of policy should be carried out - and is within the ability of the citizens of the country to do so, peacefully, through elections.

The EU, the logic of majority voting in a federation of countries, destroys this. People no longer feel in control, they will be angry if a crisis turns serious enough. And there will be ones to channel that anger. Anger can easily beget war. Before dismissing the prospect of a war in Europe you would do well to study the breakdown of Yugoslavia. It started with resentment, that resentment was channeled bu nationalist politicians, weapons were supplied by other parties, rebellion declared, and opposed... war. It's not some barbarous relic banished forever. We are the same kind of people our fathers and grandfathers were. They learned that the risk of war was real, though experience, when conditions aligned to make it possible - and it all starts with anger an perceived injuries, which is not addressed in time.
Younger ones have not learned that through practical experience. Yet.

I'm not cheerful. I would very much like to be, and I will be when I see things heading in a good direction.

 

[Akka]

Yes. Far from being a forum for cooperation and for bringing together the people from the several countries of Europe, it's been dividing them.

/facepalm

You must not know a lot of Europe history before the EU.

 

[Kyriakos]

/facepalm

You must not know a lot of Europe history before the EU.

Well, while the older version of the EU was formed to deter against a future massive Euro war, in reality it was primarily the existence of atomic (and later on hydrogen) bombs which allowed for most of Europe to quit the old habit of perpetual orbit around Mars, via armed peace.

Despite my own very negative sentiments about the EU as it is, i should note that it would be relatively easy for a few oligarchs to bring things to what they now are, given a union of 500 million people with a babel of different languages and cultures can only last for as long as there aren't very obvious schisms forming. And it was easy.

 

[Agent327]

So if the group never agrees to negotiate again, you are stuck with what you ready negotiates with it.

For a hypothetical this is quite true. It's still hypothetical though:

What this means is, more generally, that one you relinquish a power to the EU, you can never claim it back. It is forever taken from the poll of thinks the british people can democratically decide on. They will be subject to veto power from parties that are completely outside their control.

The same applies to a UK seen without the context of a EU.

Unless they exercise their sovereign power to denounce the treaty binding them to this state of affairs and leave the EU. They they can negotiate whatever the wish, But they will have the power do decide, in any future election, that a negotiated issue should be changed. and actually change it. This is the difference between having sovereignty, or being a territory that must consent to something (except in the increasing areas where "majority voting" will be used in the EU) but then never again gets the freedom to change what it allowed once.

Do you know how parliamentary democracy works? As in political history agreements, laws, and all kinds of other things are regularly revised, renegotiated and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Laws, let alone political agreements, are never for all eternity. As, in fact, the whole history of the UK 'joining' of the EU shows: near constant renegotiating of previous agreements, the latest example of which we've just seen with Cameron.

They won't. Power is as power always was. Democracy without sovereignty is an empty shell that eventually loses all public trust.

A good thing then that the EU is a democratic institution between sovereign states. Now let's do this argument with Britain's NATO membership.

IIRC the Syrian civil war was not caused by bombing Syria. The Saudis and other meddlers encouraged
the revolt when they should have encouraged (bribed with aid) the regime to quietly reform.

You forgot to mention the Libyan civil war also wasn't caused by bombing. However, we were discussing refugees to Europe, which is a bit of a different thing. But thanks for confirming it wasn't the EU - which was the point.

This profiteering is frequently stated, but I have never seen any rigorous evidence.

No profiteering was mentioned. As for economic profit, check any economic history book on the period 1950-1973.

However I, and others, have quite different perspectives.

Firstly I was born 60 years ago a citizen of a largely independent country (the UK) and unlike the French etc, I was never given
the opportunity to vote in a referendum as to whether to join the EU. The nearest thing we had to a referendum was the election
for the European Parliament which if you may remember was in terms of the UK vote won by the UKIP.

UKIP won the European elections? When did this happen? And FWIW, the UK still is an independent country - just as every other EU member. You must have missed the huge 'refugee problem' happening showing exactly how independent each country is, leading to a complete failure to deal with it in any effective means.

I do not believe that
my decision to vote should be prejudiced by the fact that both John Major and Tony Blair chose to proceed forwards with the
EU without a UK referendum because they knew very well that they would have lost a referendum.

The UK joined the EC a bit before the likes of Major and Blair.

Secondly I regard the current position as an untenable half way house i.e. in so much as the UK has its
own currency, military; it is in reality only half in the EU anyway.

Th EU has no military. (It has a Frontex, which is hugely undermanned and underequipped, because, you know, all those independent countries don't actually want it to be effective.) So another non-argument.

To many of us staying in the EU is equally a leap in the dark.

It may have been 50 years ago when joining. Your argument seems to be that every year is a leap in the dark. That's true insofar as nobody can predict the future. That was not the point, however.

I.e. The EU Court ruled in June 2015 that 5% VAT on energy efficiency for the over 60s in the UK is illegal.
Apart from the fact that this conflicts with the setting of targets to move to a low carbon economy
(which Tony Blair signed up to because he hoped to be EU President in itself damaged the UK steel industry)
these decisions undermine the ability of the UK government to move the UK economy forward.

The EU has no president. VAT has very little to do with reducing carbon use.

IIRC in the USA, individual states may separately have or not have their own sales tax.

But none of those states can secede or leave the union. The US also do have a president, unlike the EU.

A benefit of leaving the EU is that we can decided such matters for ourselves.

True. You may set your own VAT-like taxes. Which seems to be the only argument left.

 

[EnglishEdward]

UKIP won the European elections? When did this happen?

I will explain this point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm

In 2009 the anti-EU UKIP party defeated the pro EU Labour party.

The conservatives won more seats but they were and are a mix of pro and anti-EU.

This is why I regard that election as the closest thing to a UK referendum on the EU.

And FWIW, the UK still is an independent country - just as every other EU member. You must have missed the huge 'refugee problem' happening showing exactly how independent each country is, leading to a complete failure to deal with it in any effective means.

Part of the problem of being in a halfway house. Neither the member states nor the EU as a whole can properly deal with issues of which the refugee and other migrants issue is just one.

The UK joined the EC a bit before the likes of Major and Blair.

The former EC is not the same as the current or future EU. It is those two Prime Ministers who were in power when the treaties creating the EU were signed.

Th EU has no military.

The EU treaties provide for a common military. I suggest you go read the treaty and the enabling clause. The fact that that clause has not been followed through yet simply supports my statement that we are in a half way house. The Irish initially voted against this because they wished to preserve their neutrality but were bullied into line for the second vote. President Vladimir Putin is also well aware of this provision. This is one of the reasons he annexed Crimea because he knew that Russia would not be permitted to have the Russian navy based in a foreign military block which would have been the case if the expanded Ukraine joined the EU in its entirety.

(It has a Frontex, which is hugely undermanned and underequipped, because, you know, all those independent countries don't actually want it to be effective.) So another non-argument.

If they don't want it to be effective, then they don't want to be in the EU although they may not have realised the latter consequence of their former thinking yet.

I can not envisage how the EU project can progress forwards while other countries do not want it to do so. Why should the UK islands believe in a dream that the continentals do not believe in?

It may have been 50 years ago when joining. Your argument seems to be that every year is a leap in the dark. That's true insofar as nobody can predict the future. That was not the point, however.

My argument is that the project fear statements that leaving is a leap in the dark imply that leaving creates uncertainty while remaining does not. Thank you for confirming that the future is uncertain whether in or out of the EU.

The EU has no president.

Well according to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Union

there are four presidents.

 

[Arakhor]

And none of those are the president of the EU as a whole, as that very page would have told you.

 

[AdrienIer]

I will explain this point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_999999.stm

In 2009 the anti-EU UKIP party defeated the pro EU Labour party.

The conservatives won more seats but they were and are a mix of pro and anti-EU.

This is why I regard that election as the closest thing to a UK referendum on the EU.

What ? I don't see how the 2009 european election is anything like a referendum on the EU.

Also, about 23% of people voted for a pro exit party, and 28% for the "mixed feelings" tories. Even if you think 2/3 of conservative voters from that election are for leaving, the exit side is barely above 40%.

 

[EnglishEdward]

What ? I don't see how the 2009 european election is anything like a referendum on the EU.

For some people it was. For others perhaps a referendum on the then Labour government.
We could debate that endlessly.

So you agree that (unlike the Fench & Netherlands) the UK people have not been consulted?

Also, about 23% of people voted for a pro exit party, and 28% for the "mixed feelings" tories. Even if you think 2/3 of conservative voters from that election are for leaving, the exit side is barely above 40%.

I agree with your mathematics. Thank you.

However I suspect that some people who are anti-EU did not bother to vote then.

Anyway that was 2009 and since then the EURO and migrant crises have arisen;
so the popularity of the EU has declined.

 

[AdrienIer]

This is close enough to a referendum. At least it's a consultation, so you're definitely wrong there.