Remain or leave:UK referendum

[Pannonian]

You'll have to point out what those major costs are, because I know of none. And...if you are clinging onto the EU in order to counteract the Tories....the Tories we can overturn, what ability do we have to affect the EU commission's decisions?

If you're talking about TTIP, I have no idea what any democratic organ of ours can do to overturn it. AFAIK it's the product of corporate bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. You have to recognise that at least one group of these, on the western side of the Atlantic, already has a single government backing them. And as hard as it is to swallow, at least the second group, on the eastern side of the Atlantic, is closer to our way of thinking than that on the west. Unless you want to quit both groups entirely (and in practice moving away from the EU only means wanting to move closer to the US), at least we'll be a more significant voice within the second, more fragmented group. Corporations will look to screw us no matter what, but at least European ones speak a closer political language to that we're used to.

On political discourse, would you prefer to guard against a government looking to privatise parts of the NHS, or would you prefer a political discourse that sees no need at all for an NHS, and dispense with it entirely in favour of building from private foundations? The former is what we have in the UK, which is reasonably close to other social programmes in Europe. The latter is the US, and is alien to me. Other than the shared English language, the political discourse in the US is far more alien to me than that in Europe.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

If you're talking about TTIP, I have no idea what any democratic organ of ours can do to overturn it. AFAIK it's the product of corporate bodies on both sides of the Atlantic. You have to recognise that at least one group of these, on the western side of the Atlantic, already has a single government backing them. And as hard as it is to swallow, at least the second group, on the eastern side of the Atlantic, is closer to our way of thinking than that on the west. Unless you want to quit both groups entirely (and in practice moving away from the EU only means wanting to move closer to the US), at least we'll be a more significant voice within the second, more fragmented group. Corporations will look to screw us no matter what, but at least European ones speak a closer political language to that we're used to.

On political discourse, would you prefer to guard against a government looking to privatise parts of the NHS, or would you prefer a political discourse that sees no need at all for an NHS, and dispense with it entirely in favour of building from private foundations? The former is what we have in the UK, which is reasonably close to other social programmes in Europe. The latter is the US, and is alien to me. Other than the shared English language, the political discourse in the US is far more alien to me than that in Europe.

You keep making these claims that if we leave the EU then we MUST join the US in some economic/political pact. This strikes me as just fundamentally ill-founded nonsense. As I say...why should I trust an EU commission that I have absolutely no way of representing myself to, that I have no way of making answerable to me or any other electorate, to look after my interests in negotiations regarding TTIP? Why are those negotiations taking part in secret away even from the EU parliament? Why tf does anyone think there is a requirement for any body to enter TTIP negotiations?

This idea that the EU has always had a strong socialist block is the reason the Labour party are keen on it. To my mind that is a huge error, based upon a belief that the EU parliament, rather than the commission, is the decision making body.

[Fragony]

Drunks tend to be honest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...uotations.html

[InsaneApache]

It's never the glamorous side to take, but the status quo serves us best and harms us least. Just adjust here and there, and the mood within Europe seems to be that adjustments will come sooner or later anyway.

It's as simple as this. Forget all the scaremongering of economic/global/nuclear meltdown that been chucked about.

Do you want the ability to remove the lawmakers/politicians at the ballot box, or do you desire to be governed by potentates that you cannot remove?

Also ponder on this, if the UK votes to stay in then expect the Euro to be implemented soon after.......

[Greyblades]

...And how will they do that? Or did Cameron's deal include a "we'll give up our nukes and armies" clause that I missed.

[Gilrandir]

Why do you continue to live in the UK, when it's obviously such a canker for you? Why don't you up sticks and move to somewhere which is closer to what you'd like a country to be? It's just a short journey via the Chunnel.

He doesn't like what the French government does either. So it is a nowhere-to-run situation for him.

[Brenus]

“Why do you continue to live in the UK, when it's obviously such a canker for you? Why don't you up sticks and move to somewhere which is closer to what you'd like a country to be? It's just a short journey via the Chunnel.” Well, to annoy people like you is a great motivation, I would say, but the main real motive is I am married with an English/Irish woman and I have family in UK, so I am a little stuck.
Then England is not so bad, as country, but like all countries no without flaws.
The third observation is how from this sentence (speaking of politic) you draw your conclusion is beyond me. Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction because a foreigner speaks what you perceive as an attack?
Channel, not chunnel.

“The way I see it the EU, as it is, is run by the suicidally incompetent” Agree.

“I'm hoping that the fear of losing us will provoke the EU into cleaning up their act” I wish, but I don’t think it will.
Then I am not sure that you and I share the same view on what the EU should be, but it is other debate. I certainly didn’t signed for a free-market zone with no regulations and exploitation of the weakest (reason why I voted against the European Treaty, as a majority of French, fact that was pushed away against democratic rules. Imagine Putin doing this, the comments of the EU commission…).

“I don't see why we can't do what the French do, which is to take what we want of the EU, and ignore what we don't want” The fact is UK does. When Poland came in EU, France opted a 2 years ban before having them as workers. UK decided to have the migration…

“Can france really do that with no repercussions?” Do what?

“This idea that the EU has always had a strong socialist block is the reason” . I can’t unfortunately give you a link as what they show is not the reality (or my vision of reality, should I say).

“He doesn't like what the French government does either” A bit of truth in it. However, I saw no one leaving a country after elections. I know the super-rich and bankers say they would if a “lefty” government would take power (or basically any form of government saying they will take a bit of the money they earn/take thanks to the protection of the same governments), but they in fact never do.
Ooops, except G Depardieux who became a Russian, proof that Putin is a real Red with a knife between the teeth..

[Pannonian]

You keep making these claims that if we leave the EU then we MUST join the US in some economic/political pact. This strikes me as just fundamentally ill-founded nonsense. As I say...why should I trust an EU commission that I have absolutely no way of representing myself to, that I have no way of making answerable to me or any other electorate, to look after my interests in negotiations regarding TTIP? Why are those negotiations taking part in secret away even from the EU parliament? Why tf does anyone think there is a requirement for any body to enter TTIP negotiations?

This idea that the EU has always had a strong socialist block is the reason the Labour party are keen on it. To my mind that is a huge error, based upon a belief that the EU parliament, rather than the commission, is the decision making body.

Do you reckon the UK can stand alone in splendid isolation against competing economic blocs the size of the US and the EU? If not, and if you agree that we have to be part of a bloc of some kind, what role do you see us in the process of collective bargaining? On what basis does the bargaining start from? Does the bargaining start from the expectation that all activity starts from near-untrammelled individual freedom, with individual lawsuits and insurance holding abuses in check (the US position)? Or does the bargaining start from the expectation that government-enforced regulations are an integral part of individual activity (the European position)?

As for the unelected EU commission, that's part of collective bargaining. Executives making commercial decisions won't be elected. Neither on either side of the Atlantic will be answerable to the electorate. But does it hurt less to be screwed by the corporates on the west side of the Atlantic, or by those on the east side of the Atlantic? Or would you prefer to stand aside, and be screwed by both?

[Pannonian]

He doesn't like what the French government does either. So it is a nowhere-to-run situation for him.

I've not seen him look forward to things happening just for the pleasure of screwing the French people over though, as he frequently does with the British. It's one thing to disagree, but another thing to take pleasure in the misfortune of the people among whom he lives.

[Fragony]

Brits should join the ranks of everybody who is tired of all this meddling of alchoholists and lobbyists. England, Denmark, Netherlands, nobody else.

[Pannonian]

Brits should join the ranks of everybody who is tired of all this meddling of alchoholists and lobbyists. England, Denmark, Netherlands, nobody else.

There are lobbyists in the UK as well, as Scotland and the regions frequently blame Westminster for. Wherever there is government, there will be lobbyists. Scotland blames London. London blames Brussels. Brussels probably blames Washington.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Do you reckon the UK can stand alone in splendid isolation against competing economic blocs the size of the US and the EU? If not, and if you agree that we have to be part of a bloc of some kind, what role do you see us in the process of collective bargaining? On what basis does the bargaining start from? Does the bargaining start from the expectation that all activity starts from near-untrammelled individual freedom, with individual lawsuits and insurance holding abuses in check (the US position)? Or does the bargaining start from the expectation that government-enforced regulations are an integral part of individual activity (the European position)?

As for the unelected EU commission, that's part of collective bargaining. Executives making commercial decisions won't be elected. Neither on either side of the Atlantic will be answerable to the electorate. But does it hurt less to be screwed by the corporates on the west side of the Atlantic, or by those on the east side of the Atlantic? Or would you prefer to stand aside, and be screwed by both?

Really? You think we have to tie ourselves to a bloc? You really swallow all this nonsense? Why do you think the EU don't want us to leave? For our benefit? If we left the EU countries would still want to do business with us, they would still want economic involvement. As for TTIP...you speak as if everybody HAS to agree to some form of it. It is essentially the loss of sovereignty to corporate bodies, being negotiated by an unelected commission. That unelected commission is not de facto answerable to the European parliament, in the same way that, for example, the government is answerable to the UK parliament.

Tell me, what major blocs are Iceland, Switzerland or Denmark tied to for their economic safety? How assured must the Greek people be that their elected representatives are able to make economic decisions about their country?

This whole idea that we have to be part of a bloc, or that we have to accept TTIP is scaremongering nonsense, not backed by any evidence at all.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

There are lobbyists in the UK as well, as Scotland and the regions frequently blame Westminster for. Wherever there is government, there will be lobbyists. Scotland blames London. London blames Brussels. Brussels probably blames Washington.

Well...I tend to agree, that is the problem of centralisation....especially when the key electorate are in particular areas. As I said, I believe there should be greater devolution, not more centralisation.

[Fragony]

There are lobbyists in the UK as well, as Scotland and the regions frequently blame Westminster for. Wherever there is government, there will be lobbyists. Scotland blames London. London blames Brussels. Brussels probably blames Washington.

Of course there are, but it only takes denouncing a word if you are smart

edit, it guess I should say more. The word I mean is populism. To who exactly is that a bad word really? I know who. Let's take a look at history. It was when the elite just took land. First populist was Grachus, how dared he protesting to thievery. Populist! Didn't end well for him.

[Pannonian]

Really? You think we have to tie ourselves to a bloc? You really swallow all this nonsense? Why do you think the EU don't want us to leave? For our benefit? If we left the EU countries would still want to do business with us, they would still want economic involvement. As for TTIP...you speak as if everybody HAS to agree to some form of it. It is essentially the loss of sovereignty to corporate bodies, being negotiated by an unelected commission. That unelected commission is not de facto answerable to the European parliament, in the same way that, for example, the government is answerable to the UK parliament.

Tell me, what major blocs are Iceland, Switzerland or Denmark tied to for their economic safety? How assured must the Greek people be that their elected representatives are able to make economic decisions about their country?

This whole idea that we have to be part of a bloc, or that we have to accept TTIP is scaremongering nonsense, not backed by any evidence at all.

The difference between Iceland and other extra-EU countries is that they're outside the EU, and they will remain outside the EU, whereas you're advocating that we should actively remove ourselves from the EU. See the case of Scotland, and the issues involved. There are many, many institutions in Scotland that are integrated with the UK. Independence wouldn't mean a Scotland separate from the UK, but a Scotland separated from the UK. The rUK could easily survive without Scotland, whereas Scotland would be in a poor position without the UK, but both would be better off as we've always been. Similarly with the UK and the EU. BrExit doesn't mean a UK separate from the EU, but a UK separated from the EU. And as in the case of Scotland, the larger body that is the rEU could well survive better than the UK in the event of separation, but both would be better off with the status quo.

In the event of BrExit, I can see the kind of vindictiveness towards the UK, as was mooted from the rUK towards an independent Scotland. That's what separation means. Renegotiate economic treaties? Why would anyone look to give the UK good terms, when there's a far bigger market on their doorstep who will be looking to stop any further defectors?

[Pannonian]

Of course there are, but it only takes denouncing a word if you are smart

edit, it guess I should say more. The word I mean is populism. To who exactly is that a bad word really? I know who. Let's take a look at history. It was when the elite just took land. First populist was Grachus, how dared he protesting to thievery. Populist! Didn't end well for him.

s this meant to relate to anything EU, or is this a general historical musing?

[Brenus]

"It's one thing to disagree, but another thing to take pleasure in the misfortune of the people among whom he lives." And when did I did that? As I live the same misfortune...

[Gilrandir]

Channel, not chunnel.

People, how could you have failed to notice this one? Brenus correcting the spelling of a Brit.

[Pannonian]

People, how could you have failed to notice this one? Brenus correcting the spelling of a Brit.

Chunnel = Channel Tunnel.

Eurostar, St Pancras to Gare du Nord.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

The difference between Iceland and other extra-EU countries is that they're outside the EU, and they will remain outside the EU, whereas you're advocating that we should actively remove ourselves from the EU.

?? Yes I'm advocating that your suggestion that we just HAVE to be tied to one bloc or another or risk economic annihilation is without any foundation. You are now arguing a different point, it seems. So...before we move on, there is no evidence (and in fact is counter-evidence to the claim) that to avoid economic apocalypse the UK MUST choose a bloc.

See the case of Scotland, and the issues involved. There are many, many institutions in Scotland that are integrated with the UK. Independence wouldn't mean a Scotland separate from the UK, but a Scotland separated from the UK. The rUK could easily survive without Scotland, whereas Scotland would be in a poor position without the UK, but both would be better off as we've always been. Similarly with the UK and the EU. BrExit doesn't mean a UK separate from the EU, but a UK separated from the EU. And as in the case of Scotland, the larger body that is the rEU could well survive better than the UK in the event of separation, but both would be better off with the status quo.

In the event of BrExit, I can see the kind of vindictiveness towards the UK, as was mooted from the rUK towards an independent Scotland. That's what separation means. Renegotiate economic treaties? Why would anyone look to give the UK good terms, when there's a far bigger market on their doorstep who will be looking to stop any further defectors?

There are fundamental differences with Scotland/the UK and UK/EU. Firstly, Scotland and the UK share a currency. Secondly our armed forces form one singular entity. Thirdly...regarding government ownership (particularly off-shore). None of these apply to the UK/EU. I have asked what these implications are, that you have claimed there will be a cost to separate ourselves from...you haven't managed to outline one yet.

As for the idea that there might be ramifications due to vindictiveness....there would be no good economic sense in that. Scaremongering is all that is.

Can you actually give a reason why the UK would be worse off, rather than just vague hint at some things....

[Fragony]

s this meant to relate to anything EU, or is this a general historical musing?

Can be both. It's an intellectual sin to even assume that there can be anything learned from history butwhy narrow it down to hat, there is more than enough in mentality.

[InsaneApache]

Just seen an hilarious interview on the Daily Politics between Jo Coburn and George Galloway. I'll post a video when I can find one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...itics-22022016

31:40.

[Gilrandir]

There are fundamental differences with Scotland/the UK and UK/EU. Firstly, Scotland and the UK share a currency. Secondly our armed forces form one singular entity. Thirdly...regarding government ownership (particularly off-shore). None of these apply to the UK/EU.

And guys in the EU don't wear skirts. Definitely little in common.
Disclaimer: not all guys, though:

[Gilrandir]

And now Boris chips in:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...exit-live.html

[Slyspy]

The very idea of holding a referendum on something so important is laughable.

[Gilrandir]

The very idea of holding a referendum on something so important is laughable.

I agree. It is a manipulaton technique. If the powers-that-be were so eager to find out what people think and obey their voting, why don't they hold referenda on immigation crisis, Syria intervention, marijuana legelization and so on.

[InsaneApache]

[Kralizec]

?? Yes I'm advocating that your suggestion that we just HAVE to be tied to one bloc or another or risk economic annihilation is without any foundation. You are now arguing a different point, it seems. So...before we move on, there is no evidence (and in fact is counter-evidence to the claim) that to avoid economic apocalypse the UK MUST choose a bloc.

[....]

As for the idea that there might be ramifications due to vindictiveness....there would be no good economic sense in that. Scaremongering is all that is.

Can you actually give a reason why the UK would be worse off, rather than just vague hint at some things....

Well, one argument is that in order to benefit fully from Europe's internal market it would have to negotiate a similar deal that Norway or Switzerland has. Britain is a larger country and therefore in a better position to negotiate a good deal, but it's still less influence on the package then an actual member state would have.

I don't think that the EU will try to financially harm Britain out of spite. It makes no economic sense and I don't think that any country in Europe is vindicative enough to push for it - and even so, countries like the Netherlands would never agree to it. But if a particular policy would earn Europe 5 bucks while costing the UK 10 bucks, there's nothing to prevent the EU from going for it except good neighbourship.

I can understand the gripes about the Commission and EU politics in general, but other than that I'm sceptical about most of the arguments in favor of a Brexit. The ones about "freedom of movement" in particular. IIRC there was a study a few months ago that showed that "welfare tourism", as Conservatives call it, is a marginal phenomenon. And there are almost 1.5 million Brits using their freedom of movement by residing in other EU member states

[Snowhobbit]

Well, one argument is that in order to benefit fully from Europe's internal market it would have to negotiate a similar deal that Norway or Switzerland has. Britain is a larger country and therefore in a better position to negotiate a good deal, but it's still less influence on the package then an actual member state would have.

I don't think that the EU will try to financially harm Britain out of spite. It makes no economic sense and I don't think that any country in Europe is vindicative enough to push for it - and even so, countries like the Netherlands would never agree to it. But if a particular policy would earn Europe 5 bucks while costing the UK 10 bucks, there's nothing to prevent the EU from going for it except good neighbourship.

I can understand the gripes about the Commission and EU politics in general, but other than that I'm sceptical about most of the arguments in favor of a Brexit. The ones about "freedom of movement" in particular. IIRC there was a study a few months ago that showed that "welfare tourism", as Conservatives call it, is a marginal phenomenon. And there are almost 1.5 million Brits using their freedom of movement by residing in other EU member states

The core of the issue though is that you cannot expect the free movement of Capital if you do not want the free movement of People and Services. It is not realistic to expect Britain to pick the raisins out of the cookie. Something which I understand to be a popular misconception in the general debate in UK about the issue. That being said if UK votes to leave then an amicable settlement should be reached where those things which are mutually beneficial and desirable remain, and those which are not will be gone. But I don't expect London to be the same financial hub if that happens.

[Strike For The South]

Leave and align closer with the Anglo world.