Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[EnglishEdward]

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

Oh, Yes; That 1975 vote was definitely a referendum.

However it was about the European Economic
Community and not about the European Union.

The UK population were never consulted about the European
Union, but many expressed their opinion in voiting in 2009.

 

[AdrienIer]

Well the EU is much older than 2009, so I really don't understand why you claim that the 2009 election in particular is a "referendum"

 

[Agent327]

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.

Right. So UKIP won no European elections. Just what I thought. (And I understand a referendum is currently in the making, so no need to pretend about earlier referenda.)

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.

Once again, the UK is not part of the refugee deal. And FWIW, immigrants have always been 'an issue'. (That's why there's the USA.)

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.

Indeed. And Mr Major negotiated a compromise to favour the UK. As Mr Cameron has now tried again - based on the earlier compromise.

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.

Not quite. There simply is no consensus for a EU army. Nor does it look like this will change much in the future. (Sort of like that 'ever closer union' phrase Mr Major had put in.)

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.

Not quite. Frontex is in practice mostly a front, as the 20 plus EU members don't actually want to pay for EU border control. (They'd like to take Turkey that job for them.) But seriously, with the EU border length effective border patrol might be forever a dream.

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?

Islands that don't believe, whereas a continent does. Interesting metaphores.

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.

A leap in the dark says nothing about fear. Every step forward is to some extent a leap in the dark, as you might fall. That doesn't stop people from walking though.

Well according to

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

there are four presidents.

Having 4 presidents in the EU means basically the same as: the EU doesn't have a president. (If the USA had 4 presidents, that would be exactly the same.) The EU council, for example, does have a president - in the sense of chairman. That's not quite the same as 'president of the EU', as that would imply some powers being associated with the 'presidency' of the EU. (It would also mean that 1 country would have a bigger say than the rest; not something I say the EU agreeing on anytime soon.)

In short, I think we're still at: the UK should leave the EU, so they can set their own VAT.

 

[Arakhor]

And call staying in Europe 'project fear' a few more times, just in case people might have missed that the first half-dozen times.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I still fail to figure out what would be better handled without the EU than with it.

The distrust of the EU is I believe one of many symptoms of the general fear of lack of control in the context of globalization. We do feel the world abroad as having a much more direct effect on us than in the past.

As told earlier in the thread, the whole argument about wanting to leave the EU to see beyond is a scam, as being a member of the EU doesn't prevent anyone to see beyond it. Quite at the opposite, one of the EU's main strength is to weight as a single body in WTO negociations.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

In short, I think we're still at: the UK should leave the EU, so they can set their own VAT.

Depending upon who you consult, something like 50, 60 or even 70% of our laws are now being made in Brussels where we have a 9% say and where we are continually out-voted. VAT is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of that.
It’s like a bunch of Mexicans, Brazilians and Argentinians (all perfectly decent people I am sure) deciding many of the laws of America and Canada. Or a bunch of Americans and Canadians deciding the laws of Brazil or Argentina etc.
Or about foreign supreme courts being able to override your own supreme court.
Some people like that sort of thing – most Brits don’t.

There are many non-quantifiable reasons for wanting out like sovereignty, freedom to decide stuff for ourselves as much as possible, lack of open democracy of the EU etc.
But I suspect it is mostly something that comes from within – if you are an independent sort of person who thinks you and your country should be able to make our own way in the world and not be subjected to foreign laws then you would probably wish to vote Leave. If you like the small state you might want to leave, but if you like a big nanny state you might want to remain.

It is NOT all about £ and pence. It is about much, much more than that.

I don’t often agree with Peter Hitchens in the Mail, but perhaps he got it right here:

PETER HITCHENS: Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels?
I couldn’t care less what the CBI or the TUC or the Bank of England or the British Chambers of Commerce think about the EU. This isn’t a business transaction. You might as well go to the MCC or the British Federation of Lepidopterists, or a convention of stamp collectors, and ask them how to vote.
It isn’t about money or about jobs. It’s an instinct and an intuition. It is about that priceless thing, governing yourself, going out if necessary, into the biting cold – rather than staying warm and comfortable by being someone else’s servant or subject.
Each of us must decide this for himself or herself.

 

[really]

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?

It is difficult to make a positive argument for the EU.

The EU isn't all that powerful - the benefits are at the margins or in some very specific areas like the environment, trade, infrastructure and research.

A lot of those benefits are taken for granted or assumed that individual countries would have implemented or negotiated them anyway.

We don't know what a Europe without the EU would look like today.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Not quite. There simply is no consensus for a EU army. Nor does it look like this will change much in the future. (Sort of like that 'ever closer union' phrase Mr Major had put in.)

Then there is no point in an EU that cannot have an EU military to defend itself.

The USA has a military, the Russian Federation has a military so does
China and so does India. An EU without an EU military is merely a joke.

In short, I think we're still at: the UK should leave the EU, so they can set their own VAT.

IIRC Having states set their own taxes was purported to be the
main reason for the USA Declaration of Independence.

There are plenty of other reasons or Brexit as outlined by other posters.


The choice is not between the present EU and exit; nor the present EU as supposedly amended by David Cameron's deal which is of extremely dubious legality, but between the future EU (either a stuck as are halfway house or a federal state) and those options that exit would permit.

 

[Arakhor]

I don’t often agree with Peter Hitchens in the Mail, but perhaps he got it right here:

You thought that "Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels?" was good? It's utterly meaningless and completely sidesteps any reason why people might want to remain in the EU.

Then there is no point in an EU that cannot have an EU military to defend itself.

The USA has a military, the Russian Federation has a military so does China and so does India. An EU without an EU military is merely a joke.

I thought that you didn't want the EU to have a military presence?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I thought that you didn't want the EU to have a military presence?

I would prefer the UK to be independent, but if it is to remain in the EU the EU proponents should follow through with the logic of the EU which would include
direct EU taxation of individuals and corporates, a central parliament which would replace the councils of ministers and prime ministers and to which the EU civil service
would report and a united European military to defend the mainland and all the islands.

 

[Arakhor]

So, if we are to remain in the EU, we should totally federalise the EU and abstract even more power away from Westminster? I don't think you've thought that one through properly.

 

[PhroX]

I really don't get all the fuss about "the EU making our laws". Why does it matter whether the corrupt kleptocrats who write said laws reside in Westminster or Brussels?

 

[Akka]

For people who derides the pro-EU campaign with "campaign about fear", it seems that their whole argumentation is about some vague fear about a nebulous "Brussel/EU" ill-defined entity which has all the trappings of the "outside threat"...

 

[Mega Tsunami]

You thought that "Here's the entire EU debate in 9 words: Do you want to be a servant of Brussels?" was good? It's utterly meaningless and completely sidesteps any reason why people might want to remain in the EU.

Like I said it is something in you - you either feel those things or you don’t.
You obviously don’t – but it doesn’t make it meaningless.
No amount of quantifying or explaining the pluses or minuses of the economics will change that feeling of wanting to govern yourself (as much as possible anyway – and certainly not by another country).
Call it the Braveheart in the Brits if you like. A bit like, against so much scaremongering about the dangers of independence, so many Scots still voted for Independence.
On that independence thread I argued against those who said it would be all plain sailing, but still, in the end, said that if I was a Scot I would vote for independence.
(Obviously, they would be in a spot of bother at the moment with independence day this week (what with the drop in the price of oil) … but that’s another matter.)

@Marla – IIRC, you waxed lyrical about Scotland and its possible freedom from Whitehall ‘oppression’. Do you not see the same situation here and our possible freedom from Brussels ‘oppression’? If independence was right for Scotland, isn’t it right for the UK?

 

[Borachio]

For people who derides the pro-EU campaign with "campaign about fear", it seems that their whole argumentation is about some vague fear about a nebulous "Brussel/EU" ill-defined entity which has all the trappings of the "outside threat"...

I agree.

But if the only argument the In campaign has is that leaving would be disastrous for the UK, then I'm simply not persuaded that staying is a good idea. Give me good sound reasons for staying. Not simply ones for not leaving.

Not that I'm going to be persuaded. I've already made up my mind and am deaf to all arguments one way or another. I'm voting to leave just because. And because both Cameron and Farage would be out of work.

 

[Arakhor]

Like I said it is something in you - you either feel those things or you don’t.
You obviously don’t – but it doesn’t make it meaningless.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't sum up the entire debate as he claims. Now, if he'd said, "if you want to be out, that's all the debate you need", that'd be fine, but he didn't say that.

Yes, he's apparently writing in the Daily Fail, as he's preaching to the choir, but still.

 

[AdrienIer]

But if the only argument the In campaign has is that leaving would be disastrous for the UK, then I'm simply not persuaded that staying is a good idea. Give me good sound reasons for staying. Not simply ones for not leaving.

Um, it feels like if leaving is disastrous then it's a good argument for staying. It's a perfectly fine logical argument. If A and B are mutually incompatible and you have to choose between them then an argument saying that B is terrible is a pretty good argument for choosing A. It doesn't mean A is perfect, just that it's preferable.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Um, it feels like if leaving is disastrous then it's a good argument for staying. It's a perfectly fine logical argument. If A and B are mutually incompatible and you have to choose between them then an argument saying that B is terrible is a pretty good argument for choosing A. It doesn't mean A is perfect, just that it's preferable.

And that is why Britain will vote to remain – by about the same as the Scots 55-45.
(Despite my best efforts )

 

[EnglishEdward]

So, if we are to remain in the EU, we should totally federalise the EU and abstract even more power away from Westminster? I don't think you've thought that one through properly.

The problem is that neither Westminster nor Brussels have the power. I would prefer to leave the EU, but if that is not possible making the EU work is preferable.

It is a bit like having either the independent German states or a United Germany in the nineteenth century. Anything in between is no more than a temporary political expedient.

And a proper EU state with a constitution clearly defining the rules of the federal government and that of the states would enable both the federal government and the states to do their job or be clearly held accountable for failure by the respective electorate.

Having an increasingly downsized military that the UK can only really use to support American action (typically adventurism) is of questionable value. It provides little overall weight to US power but makes us the targets of the USA's targets. It also puts the UK in the demeaning position of being dependent upon the USA for logistical and firepower support with us apparently asking them for favours in fighting their wars.


At the moment; the two statements (a) we can not govern our country because EU laws and agreements prevent us and (b) we can not run the EU because the member states won't let us; are both true.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Um, it feels like if leaving is disastrous then it's a good argument for staying. It's a perfectly fine logical argument. If A and B are mutually incompatible and you have to choose between them then an argument saying that B is terrible is a pretty good argument for choosing A. It doesn't mean A is perfect, just that it's preferable.

I do not believe that leaving must be disastrous.

If an independent UK could move away from the overvalued
pound, it could firstly balance the foreign exchange account
and secondly as a consequence balance the domestic budget.

There are risks:

(a) vindictive EU might apply high tariffs on UK goods and services
(b) global players such as Toyota might reduce investment in UK

These risks are however manageable, and much more manageable than the unstable
banking and financial markets that will crash whether the UK leaves the EU or not.

The amusing thing is that Project Fear keep comparing us with Norway and
Switzerland saying we would have to accept whatever the EU dictated terms.

This ignores the facts that:

(a) Switzerland is geographically surrounded by the other EU member states
(b) Norway had pots of oil wealth for their generosity to be taken advantage of

This also amuses us because the British think that both those countries are civilised
and prosperous and do well out of not trying to be world players in political issues.