In or Out?

[Eenuh]

For obvious reasons, I would vote to stay in (if I was allowed to vote, which I am not). I don't know how leaving the EU would affect me, but I really hope it doesn't come to that point.

 

I think the EU is a good thing as it provides its member states with things such as trade and funding (things like funding for farmers etc., who would probably be worse off without the EU), and it provides the people living in the EU with rights such as maternity leave, paid annual leave, consumer protection, human rights...

 

Sure it's annoying that the EU sets laws that we don't have much to say on. But then is it any different with the laws that are being passed in the UK? Do we have any say over those? Just as an example with the junior doctor strikes. They didn't agree with Jeremy Hunt... well that's too bad because now the new contract is simply being imposed on them. So much for democracy. The political system in the UK is quite broken in my opinion, with the people in power not even receiving the majority of the votes of the people they are supposed to represent.

 

At the moment, I have more faith in the EU as a whole - where different nations have to work together for the greater good, to provide some form of stability and peace across the EU -, than I have for the government in the UK, which seems to be there to help the rich get even more rich.

 

This country currently feels like it is being ruled by fear and scaremongering, with people focusing on immigrants and benefits. They want special treatment in the EU, set themselves apart from the other member states. However by doing this, you are not making any friends in the EU, and the others will be less likely to want to work with you and help you out. The UK is alienating itself right now, and I don't think that's a good thing.

 

I read an interesting view from a Belgian professor (living in the UK for 4 years now), who said that it would be better for the UK to leave the EU. Not because he agrees with the Out campaign, but because he believes that the general feeling in the UK is that of anger and fear towards the EU, and if they were to stay in, they would start tearing it apart from the inside, trying to get their way (like Cameron has been trying to do), basically ruining the whole system. So for the EU, in his opinion it would be better if the UK left. I kind of agree with him in that there is a lot of anger in the UK, and I don't agree with one country getting special treatment over others... but I still would want the UK to stay in.

 

*ramble*

[peterl0]

Ultimately, in the future, I would not mind if it was a country, personally. Assuming there was better democratic reform. That won't be for everyone obviously. If it were though, it could be a model for how countries can set aside differences for the common good of peace and prosperity.

 

Reform of the democratic approach is not currently on the table, no. I don't think that means it could not be. Actually though I think quite a lot could be achieved by stressing the importance of existing European elections on the perception that the EU is an authoritarian regime. (And of course shutting down the Daily Mail)

[Nolan]

@Nolan

 

The EU is not a European state. I think US state rights vs federal rights is more comparable to the constituent parts of the UK vs Westiminster.

 

Drunk as I am I don't think I ever implied that the EU was a European State. Regardless, US state rights are 100% superceded by federal laws. An example is maurijuan, regardless that some states decided it was legal any person(s) can still be tried and punished federally for possession, use and distribution of marijuana.

 

I'm going to bed now. I nearly went on a rant about how shitty Apple is because their autocorrect tried faaaaar too many times to change superceded as if I didn't fucking know the word I wanted to use. Actually as if that word literally didn't exist. Basically fuck Apple.

 

 

 

 

Edit: I very much like what Eenuh had to say.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Nolan

[Zechs Merquise]

To even start seriously discussing this question, it would be best to start at the actual point the UK entered the EU and the initial referendum Britain had in 1975 to remain a remember of what was then called the European Community.

 

The way the whole issue of European cooperation was sold was on the strength of the free trade and the ability to move goods and services around member states without the need for concern over trade barriers, embargoes or tariffs that may inhibit trade. The whole drive of this 'community' was based on facilitating trade and cooperation for business.

 

That is a far cry from what the EU is today.

 

What was meant to be a trading block has become a hugely invasive and costly extra level of governance which has simply grown and grown in size, the scope of its power and financial cost to its member states. The EU law literally supersedes the law of member states and imposes rules upon member states in a manner reminiscent of Communist Block, whilst at the same time maintaining it is democracy through the European Parliament. A parliament which is simply an over staffed, costly talking shop that is riddled with bureaucracy and shockingly has no real power as every important decision is actually made by a group of unelected bureaucrats who literally hold all the power but are completely unaccountable.

 

If you look at the way the European Union has morphed from being what was essentially a simple way for neighbouring countries to easily do business (which is obviously a great idea) into a super state run by unelected bureaucrats who now set laws on everything and impose their will on sovereign states it is quite frightening. Trade and cooperation are common sense and will benefit everyone. A super state imposing laws upon sovereign states benefits no one.

 

But it goes far beyond just setting laws - states are now being forced to bail out other states who's economies are failing. There is a massive problem with border control as once people have entered the EU the freedom of movement they are afforded means millions have entered illegally and now unaccounted for. There is now a push for a European Army (why is that even needed?) which will cost countless billions. I could list far more reasons why the EU is bad for member states but I'm sure most people will read them before the referendum.

 

The road down which the EU has progressed has led to a situation that can't simply be 'reformed'. It is now too big, involves too many jobs (most of which are utterly pointless too) and has too much power. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to back out of it and negotiate our own favourable trade agreements but leave the baggage behind.

[peterl0]

I read an interesting view from a Belgian professor (living in the UK for 4 years now), who said that it would be better for the UK to leave the EU. Not because he agrees with the Out campaign, but because he believes that the general feeling in the UK is that of anger and fear towards the EU, and if they were to stay in, they would start tearing it apart from the inside, trying to get their way (like Cameron has been trying to do), basically ruining the whole system. So for the EU, in his opinion it would be better if the UK left. I kind of agree with him in that there is a lot of anger in the UK, and I don't agree with one country getting special treatment over others... but I still would want the UK to stay in.

 

Sadly this may actually be true.

[Blade]

For obvious reasons, I would vote to stay in (if I was allowed to vote, which I am not). I don't know how leaving the EU would affect me, but I really hope it doesn't come to that point.

 

I think the EU is a good thing as it provides its member states with things such as trade and funding (things like funding for farmers etc., who would probably be worse off without the EU), and it provides the people living in the EU with rights such as maternity leave, paid annual leave, consumer protection, human rights...

 

Sure it's annoying that the EU sets laws that we don't have much to say on. But then is it any different with the laws that are being passed in the UK? Do we have any say over those? Just as an example with the junior doctor strikes. They didn't agree with Jeremy Hunt... well that's too bad because now the new contract is simply being imposed on them. So much for democracy. The political system in the UK is quite broken in my opinion, with the people in power not even receiving the majority of the votes of the people they are supposed to represent.

 

At the moment, I have more faith in the EU as a whole - where different nations have to work together for the greater good, to provide some form of stability and peace across the EU -, than I have for the government in the UK, which seems to be there to help the rich get even more rich.

 

This country currently feels like it is being ruled by fear and scaremongering, with people focusing on immigrants and benefits. They want special treatment in the EU, set themselves apart from the other member states. However by doing this, you are not making any friends in the EU, and the others will be less likely to want to work with you and help you out. The UK is alienating itself right now, and I don't think that's a good thing.

 

I read an interesting view from a Belgian professor (living in the UK for 4 years now), who said that it would be better for the UK to leave the EU. Not because he agrees with the Out campaign, but because he believes that the general feeling in the UK is that of anger and fear towards the EU, and if they were to stay in, they would start tearing it apart from the inside, trying to get their way (like Cameron has been trying to do), basically ruining the whole system. So for the EU, in his opinion it would be better if the UK left. I kind of agree with him in that there is a lot of anger in the UK, and I don't agree with one country getting special treatment over others... but I still would want the UK to stay in.

 

*ramble*

 

Excellent post!

 

I agree with your arguments of trade, consumer protection, employment rights etc. Although actually the UK is trading less with the EU than it was (although it is still currently the UK's largest trading partner).

 

Disagree with you in respect of human rights (I think). If you are referring to the European Convention of Human Rights then that is not an EU treaty and neither is the European Court of Human Rights. Leaving the EU does not mean that the UK would leave the Convention.

 

Disagree with your comparison about EU laws having an effect when we dont have a say to a similar position in the UK. It is completely not the same!

 

When the Tories pass the law they are passed due to the British people putting the MPs there. If the British people don't like them we can vote them out.

 

When the EU passes laws and regulation they can be passed without the consent of the British people. The EU Council of Ministers vote using Qualified Majority Voting (so for example France, Germany etc could vote in laws that have an effect in the UK, even though the UK has voted no). The EU Commission are appointed and the EU Parliament has no teeth. It's a talking shop.

 

Basically, the institutions of the EU are not democratic nor accountable for their actions. The UK (and other member states) have to comply with laws that they do not want with no action to redress.

 

At least (as i've pointed out) in the UK we can vote out the Tories! I can't vote out the politicians wielding the power in the EU.

[peterl0]

I think the same is true on the country scale. If you identify as Cornish before British, the same argument you applied to the EU applies to this country as well.

 

You have voted for your MPs only, a majority in London or elsewhere can impose laws upon you. EU Commission may be appointed, but so is The House of Lords, as well as the top Judges. Parliament, like the EU Parliament is mostly about blocking laws.

 

If you identify as European then as a European whole, the council of ministers can be voted out.

[Blade]

I think the same is true on the country scale. If you identify as Cornish before British, the same argument you applied to the EU applies to this country as well.

 

You have voted for your MPs only, a majority in London or elsewhere can impose laws upon you. EU Commission may be appointed, but so is The House of Lords, as well as the top Judges. Parliament, like the EU Parliament is mostly about blocking laws.

 

If you identify as European then as a European whole, the council of ministers can be voted out.

 

Its really not like that at all. Its not what you identify yourself as.

 

But its the MPs that have the power. The executive branch of UK government is drawn from the legislature.

 

We elect the MPs every 5 years.

 

The House of Lords is undemocratic body that forms part of the legislature but its powers are reduced compared to the elected Commons. I would vote for the upper house to be reformed today if I could and replaced with an elected body.

 

The EU Commission holds a huge amout of power and I can't vote them in nor out.

 

Do you know how the UK Parliament works? All laws (in areas that have not been devolved) are initiated in Parliament by members of the legislature and then passed by the legislature.

 

Anyway, lets not move the discussion about what can be reformed within the UK but the arguments in and out of the EU.

 

I think the outs have the argument in respect of democracy and sovereignty

[Ashley]

Disagree with you in respect of human rights (I think). If you are referring to the European Convention of Human Rights then that is not an EU treaty and neither is the European Court of Human Rights. Leaving the EU does not mean that the UK would leave the Convention.

 

Might have been referring to other similar elements such as maximum working hours before overtime payment, maternity leave etc etc.

[peterl0]

I agree that having the EU Commission as unelected is not desirable.

 

However it is the government in the UK that usually decides to initiate a law. The government appoints the cabinet. If you lived in Cornwall and they had voted only for the opposition as a whole, then from your point of view as a Cornish citizen everyone in that government has been appointed and will impose law upon you.

 

It is different, but it is not as bad as it can be made to seem.

 

I still think it would be better to campaign for a more democratic EU than give up and leave.

[pratty]

Ultimately I would like to see a countries joining together rather than separating themselves. (How else are we going to achieve the future of Star Trek. :-) )

 

Leaving the EU doesn't have to mean isolation. I think seperate countries are a necessity for freedom, freedom requires options and the ability to choose them. Seperate countries allow for different political ideologies from which other countries can learn, to experiement, to see what works and what doesn't, for example thanks to China and North Korea we can see communism sucks and therefore should be avoided. If we were all one global country there would be less scope for political diversity, and there would be nowhere left to turn to if the global government became tyranical.

 

When it comes to the perceived lack of democracy of the EU, I think it would be better to reform the democratic approach of the EU rather than leave. After all, ultimately, a country based government will impose its rules on the country as a whole - including upon those that did not vote for them.

 

Do we even know that the EU wants to be more democratic and accountable, and allow members more individual freedom? Could it be that the EU exisits with the very purpose to facilitate political (and perhaps even cultural) hegemony across Europe?

 

I think the EU is a good thing as it provides its member states with things such as trade and funding (things like funding for farmers etc., who would probably be worse off without the EU), and it provides the people living in the EU with rights such as maternity leave, paid annual leave, consumer protection, human rights...

 

Of course you're assuming this can't be achieved without the EU. Countries could volunteer to do all this, if they don't want to then for better or worse that is surely democracy and freedom of self-deterimation in action, as opposed to an authoritarian union forcing nations to do what the EU decides is best, with one-size-fits-all polices and regulations that don't necessarily reflect the cultural, economic and political differences between the member countries.

 

Sure it's annoying that the EU sets laws that we don't have much to say on. But then is it any different with the laws that are being passed in the UK? Do we have any say over those?

 

With democracy already being flawed as you point out, surely this is all the more reason not magnify these flaws on a larger scale with one giant organisation's interpreation of democracy across the entire continent?

 

At the moment, I have more faith in the EU as a whole - where different nations have to work together for the greater good, to provide some form of stability and peace across the EU -, than I have for the government in the UK, which seems to be there to help the rich get even more rich.

 

The UK governemnt is far from perfect, but we have more opportunity to influence and change it than the EU, which is less democratic, less transparent and less accountable.

 

Also to echo my earlier point, whatever bad laws and regulations our governemnt makes, they are at least largely limited to this country, where as bad decision made by the EU have far wider consequences for far more people.

[peterl0]

I think it would be a good step to increased civilisation of humanity in general for a group of countries to join together for a common aim, without invasion. If we left, isolation could well not be a problem, but the whole would be weakened.

 

There are risks as Pratty has pointed out, but that is why this has been called the European experiment.

[Agent Gibbs]

I think both @Eenuh and @Blade sum up my thoughts on this very well - i'm conflicted as hell

There are some amazing benefits to the EU and the idealistic end goal of a United States of Europe style deal appeals to me if we can get the best of the European and US systems to work, but we are decades and decades off of being anywhere close to that.

 

There are real problems with how the EU Commison, court and other bodies are unelected but get to generate laws and uphold them, its akin to a dictatorship and whilst what they think might work might in some isolated situations it doesn't for the wider EU and creates issues.

 

Equally i don't think each individual countries leaders should have any say or control over the EU, why should Cameron have to cozy up to Merkel? the idea was that the EU government (its MEP's and Elected Leader) should create and generate laws, individual governments various politically aligned parties with their obvious prejudices should not have so much power to dictate laws for other countries, which is what they are doing!

 

The Open Border Policy is amazing in both directions, for Europeans its great and works very well, its the other laws tied to it like benefits etc that make it not so appealing, its great to go across the continent like its one giant border-less country

However we don't seem to enforce the outer borders and that is creating the current refugee and migrant crisis, literally once they slip over the Greek uncontrolled border (due to the EU's draconian destruction of its public bodies) they are then free to go unchecked anywhere as there are no other offical borders to check on their EU citizenship status

 

The Court of Human rights and its bills are too broad and don't have clauses in them that prevent the ridiculous miscarriages of justice like foreign nationals in prison claiming a right to a life here, their rights superceeding their victims and eu citizens, or giving criminals the rights to sue home/business owners if they injure themselves during the course of a crime etc

 

But all those points, all those potential problems are not sorted by one country leaving, they are solved through closer ties, reform and getting change from within, so for the potential I'm voting to stay because i don't want the EU, i want a reformed EU where no member state is the defacto leader, where EU citizens vote in MEP's and a leader who then sits above the petty interests of member states, because for all the hate of the UK's wants and desires, its ignored how the EU is effectively working for Germany because they have the power! the UK isn't the only state disadvantaged, and as long as international media focuses on the UK hating the EU its ignoring the undemocratic balance of power

[pratty]

There are risks as Pratty has pointed out, but that is why this has been called the European experiment.

 

As part of this experiment, in order to analyse the effects and results we have to be able to assert a reaction to the variables of the experiment (in this case the policies of the EU).

 

Or in a different analogy, not buying a product is a signal to the manufacturer that there is an issue with their product, it is this market reaction that forces manufacturers to change and improve. Equally the UK leaving or at least threatening to leave is a signal to the EU about how a lot of us feel about their current 'product'.

 

I'm very skeptical about the UK being a part of any "United States of Europe" for the reasons I've expressed in my eariler posts, but for those who want a better EU instead of how it is now, maybe the UK leaving now (to potentially rejoin later), or at least threatening to leave, in protest of the current EU is the way to achieve the desired improvement.

[Cubechris]

In. Stay.

 

Although that is just my initial feeling on the matter, I do need to read up on it, so any good reads on the subject would be welcome.

[Charlie]

@Nolan

 

The EU is not a European state. I think US state rights vs federal rights is more comparable to the constituent parts of the UK vs Westiminster.

 

The EU becoming a power as strong as the USA is seemingly an end goal for it though. Everything that is happening seems to point in that direction.

[MoogleViper]

They want special treatment in the EU, set themselves apart from the other member states. However by doing this, you are not making any friends in the EU, and the others will be less likely to want to work with you and help you out. The UK is alienating itself right now, and I don't think that's a good thing.

 

It's not a case of the UK wanting special treatment and to be separate, it's that we (speaking about Cameron's negotiations as the opinion of the country for readability) don't agree with many of the rules in place. It's not that we want one rule for us and another for everyone else, it's that we want new rules. Every country is in the EU because they believe it will benefit them. Countries have differing opinions on what should be rules. The UK is in a fortunate position to negotiate change and that's what we're doing.

 

To look at it from another point, why should everyone be subject to the same rules, when they clearly benefit one more than the other? The current state of Europe, the Greek debt etc., is massively in Germany's favour. The EU promised help to Greece, but ultimately failed to do so, and they were kept under the debt of Germany (I'm not saying it wasn't massively Greece's fault, merely playing devil's advocate here). Most of the EU's power resides in Germany, who have benefitted the most. Smaller nations tend to want to be a part of it for the financial injections or to enable them to operate on a global scale. The UK contributes more financially than it receives, and we are capabake of being a competing in a global market by ourselves.

 

For the record I think we should remain in the EU, but I think the anti-UK sentiment of us just being spoiled brats is nonsense.

[Eenuh]

For the record I think we should remain in the EU, but I think the anti-UK sentiment of us just being spoiled brats is nonsense.

 

It might be nonsense, but that is the way the UK is seen by many in other European countries right now.

 

I agree that there are issues with the EU and reform is needed, it is far from perfect. But I do think that we can stand stronger as a union than all these different countries separately.

 

But then I am a bit of a hippy and would get rid of countries altogether if I could. :P

[killthenet]

[Jonnas]

I feel both sides in the discussion make valid points.

 

The EU, as it is, is a mess. A legislative branch that nobody knows, an European Commission without any real power (and largely made up of washed up politicians), a Central European Bank that's too German to be trusted, the role of its de facto leader is attributed to leaders of individual member-states, and certain member-states can just opt out of measures that should be applied on the whole continent.

 

As a result of the current system, we've certainly seen Germany benefit (and get away with) a lot, and an economic system that's clearly unsustainable for the EU as a whole. It is in need of a dire reform.

 

But the UK leaving won't solve much, I think. The biggest threats to EU institutions I've seen in the past year were Greece threatening to leave the Eurozone and the refugee crisis threatening to change Shengen as we know it. You might notice that the UK never adopted Schengen or the Euro, so those were threats that a Brexit can't really hope to match (In fact, I've read that the biggest threat that Brexit makes is a reduction of the Union's GDP... which is the bare minimum, really)

 

So yeah, the Brexit doesn't have as much weight as it initially seems. If the goal is to better the EU, this threat won't accomplish much. Honestly, electing people who actually want to be more active in the EU's affairs would do far more. Quitting it is essentially killing any hope of having a say in future developments, anyway.

 

All of that said, I guess the more relevant question is "How would the UK fare in the long term, if it were to leave?", which is fair. I wouldn't know how to full answer that question, though do remember that there are very specific reasons as to why Iceland, Norway and Switzerland can prosper, and there's no guarantee that the same would happen to the UK.

 

I think the anti-UK sentiment of us just being spoiled brats is nonsense.

 

Honestly, I always thought the general sentiment regarding the UK's role in the EU wasn't "spoiled brats", but rather "too indifferent to the whole affair".

 

The only ones who get called spoiled brats are us Southern Europeans... annoyingly so.