Daily Express Crusade Victory

[dune]

THE Daily Express crusade for Britain to quit the European Union scored a huge victory yesterday when MPs agreed to hold an historic debate on the issue.

 

It means Parliament will vote on whether there should be a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU.

 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/275155/Victory-in-a-bid-to-quit-EU

 

This is excellent news. A big thanks to all the crusaders on here that voted and helped bring this about.

[pap]

I would be surprised if it gets as far as a referendum.

 

Even if it does, we haven't really shown ourselves to be capable of running a referendum with any sense of decorum, and it is still legal to lie through your teeth during referenda ( ASA doesn't apply ).

 

In short, the British people should be able to vote on this issue, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.

[dune]

I would be surprised if it gets as far as a referendum.

 

Even if it does, we haven't really shown ourselves to be capable of running a referendum with any sense of decorum, and it is still legal to lie through your teeth during referenda ( ASA doesn't apply ).

 

In short, the British people should be able to vote on this issue, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.

 

Prior to the election I recollect that Clegg promised a vote in one of the debates, and the Conservative Party cannot afford not to give us a vote given the fact that UKIP votes are what stopped the Tories winning in a lot of marginals.

 

That said winning the right to a referendum is only half the battle. If and when we do have a referendum then it will be close, but with people like Nigel Farage speaking the truth against career politicians i'd be very optimistic.

[trousers]

Do we really want to rely on the intellect of the general public to make such important decisions...?

 

When we get on a plane the passengers don't have a vote on the best takeoff method for the conditions - we leave that to the expertise of the pilot.

[pap]

Prior to the election I recollect that Clegg promised a vote in one of the debates, and the Conservative Party cannot afford not to give us a vote given the fact that UKIP votes are what stopped the Tories winning in a lot of marginals.

 

That said winning the right to a referendum is only half the battle. If and when we do have a referendum then it will be close, but with people like Nigel Farage speaking the truth against career politicians i'd be very optimistic.

 

Yeah, the Lib Dems promised a lot before the election. They were in a good position to do so, as they never thought they'd have to deliver on any of it

 

They also promised a referendum on the European Constitution, but wriggled out of their convictions when it was reworked into a series of treaty additions ( but still essentially amounted the same thing ).

 

Have you heard of the European Stability Fund?

[angelman]

Do we really want to rely on the intellect of the general public to make such important decisions...?

 

When we get on a plane the passengers don't have a vote on the best takeoff method for the conditions - we leave that to the expertise of the pilot.

 

Firstly, your plane analogy. We have a choice as whether to buy a ticket and board the plane. That is above and beyond your belief that the pilot has a certain sense of self-preservation.

 

But going to your question about entrusting such an important decision to the general public, why not? Or rather, why have elections for anything in the first place? Let's just get the House of Lords back and get rid of the Lower House.

[trousers]

Firstly, your plane analogy. We have a choice as whether to buy a ticket and board the plane. That is above and beyond your belief that the pilot has a certain sense of self-preservation.

 

But going to your question about entrusting such an important decision to the general public, why not? Or rather, why have elections for anything in the first place? Let's just get the House of Lords back and get rid of the Lower House.

 

But if we don't trust in the people we vote for at general elections to make important decisions on our behalf, where do you draw the arbitrary line between what should be subject to a referendum and what shouldn't.

 

I know I'm in devil's advocate territory here but who do you think is best placed to understand the ramifications of being in or out if Europe (for example)...'Tracey from Dagenham' or politician whose job it is to understand the implications to a level of detail that your average Joe will never achieve.

 

Yes, people will know what they want at a philosophical level but will they understand the impact if their decision on the economy, etc?

 

I vote Tory because I'm aligned with their view on Europe (for example) but I'm happy to leave them to decide when the best time to make a move is.

[Kingsland Codger]

Err.. we've already had a referendum on remaining Europe. The question asked was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?”

 

The result was a massive "yes" - two-thirds in favour.

 

So the question to ask and answer is - Should the result of a referendum be ignored just because you don't like the outcome?

 

It's happened elsewhere. I believe Ireland originally voted 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty and as that didn't suit the powers-that-be in Brussels the vote had to be re-taken. So, are you suggesting we should act like the EU and ignore the result of our valid referendum?

[solentstars]

THE Daily Express crusade for Britain to quit the European Union scored a huge victory yesterday when MPs agreed to hold an historic debate on the issue.

 

It means Parliament will vote on whether there should be a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU.

 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/275155/Victory-in-a-bid-to-quit-EU

 

This is excellent news. A big thanks to all the crusaders on here that voted and helped bring this about.

doubt it will ever happen more likely the express was playing to its readers but i think there should be a vote in or out -to see how people with vote when faced with the reality of the decision.

[solentstars]

Err.. we've already had a referendum on remaining Europe. The question asked was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?”

 

The result was a massive "yes" - two-thirds in favour.

 

So the question to ask and answer is - Should the result of a referendum be ignored just because you don't like the outcome?

 

It's happened elsewhere. I believe Ireland originally voted 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty and as that didn't suit the powers-that-be in Brussels the vote had to be re-taken. So, are you suggesting we should act like the EU and ignore the result of our valid referendum?

i agree people wanted out but when the vote came they chose to stay in and those days the conserives were the pro europe party and labour anti eu.

[ecuk268]

Not a chance of it happening.

 

Cameron was on BBC this morning basically saying that there was no way that we would leave the EU and he wasn't interested in a referendum.

[Badger]

Err.. we've already had a referendum on remaining Europe. The question asked was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?”The result was a massive "yes" - two-thirds in favour.

 

 

It may seem pedantic to some but it was actually the European Economic Community (EEC, "The Common Market" as you correctly state) that was the subject of the 1970's referendum.This is an important distinction as it was a trading block at the time, not a Federal Europe that we now have thrust upon us with greater legislative power etc.

[Badger]

i agree people wanted out but when the vote came they chose to stay in and those days the conserives were the pro europe party and labour anti eu.

 

It was never that polarised - key anti campaigners were Enoch Powell and Wedgewood-Benn from opposite ends of the spectrum. Wilson,Callaghan & Healey all pro-Europe.

[angelman]

But if we don't trust in the people we vote for at general elections to make important decisions on our behalf, where do you draw the arbitrary line between what should be subject to a referendum and what shouldn't.

 

I know I'm in devil's advocate territory here but who do you think is best placed to understand the ramifications of being in or out if Europe (for example)...'Tracey from Dagenham' or politician whose job it is to understand the implications to a level of detail that your average Joe will never achieve.

 

Yes, people will know what they want at a philosophical level but will they understand the impact if their decision on the economy, etc?

 

I vote Tory because I'm aligned with their view on Europe (for example) but I'm happy to leave them to decide when the best time to make a move is.

 

Yes, I realised that Devil's Ad. was in play and I am as well.

 

You are correct in the fact that we should entrust the politicians to make the correct decisions, but the calibre of MPs is woeful. Does anyone believe that MPs are working for their constituents best interests? The bit about the Upper house was a little TIC but did have the serious point of it used to not working along such partisan lines as it does these days.

 

There is a strong feeling within the country to at least discuss it, yet these wishes are being ignored. Being obstinate about it isn't going to make it go away. To think that they will understand the ramifications is a little unrealistic as well. All I would say is that we got to where we were quite happily (well maybe not, as we were constantly at war with each other) without a political union.

 

I find it interesting about your being aligned with Tories European view. I am a Tory voter, but couldn't vote for them in the European elections. While they might have left the EPP (whether you think that is a good thing or not is another thing) but when they sent their flyers out, they had four main points. One was a referendum, which as we all know isn't going to happen or at least not easily, and the other 3 points were about how Gordon Brown was doing domestically. They seemed to have no policy on Europe. Here is what they say:

 

The Government believes that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further areas of power should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum. This approach strikes the right balance between constructive engagement with the EU to deal with the issues that affect us all, and protecting our national sovereignty.

We will continue to be an active and activist participant in the European Union, with the goal of ensuring that Europe is equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We will ensure that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or areas of power over the course of the Parliament.

We have introduced a Bill in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty - a 'referendum lock'.

We have introduced a United Kingdom Sovereignty clause to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We will ensure that Britain does not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We are strongly defending the UK's national interests in the EU budget negotiations and agree that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We are pressing for the European Parliament to have only one seat, in Brussels.

We support the further enlargement of the EU subject to all candidates meeting the strict accession criteria.

 

So they are seemingly happy with a laissez faire attitude and will only have a referendum on future changes. Their 2nd point about being active is pithy. Transfer of sovereignty and power remaining with Westminster is populist and as things stand with the Lisbon treaty is hollow. Not joining the Euro is common sense. Strongly defending is meaningless if we adhere to the Lisbon Treaty. Having one seat, rather than decamping to Strasbourg is sensible but ultimately rather irrelevant. Expansion of Europe - great - this will mean more payments from us to support them, and more jobs relocating to these cheaper development areas.

 

But the bit about having a leading role......while we are a net contributor, why should Eu take our word more seriously over that of the French or Germans. We stay on the side and are not committed, yet think (somewhat arrogantly) that we can steer the EU to suit us.

 

I find their whole European policy wishy-washy and coupled to the fact that there are such divisions amongst the party on what direction to go in, it is no real surprise that it is a complete mess and mish mash of compromises.

[pap]

Err.. we've already had a referendum on remaining Europe. The question asked was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?”

 

The result was a massive "yes" - two-thirds in favour.

 

So the question to ask and answer is - Should the result of a referendum be ignored just because you don't like the outcome?

 

It's happened elsewhere. I believe Ireland originally voted 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty and as that didn't suit the powers-that-be in Brussels the vote had to be re-taken. So, are you suggesting we should act like the EU and ignore the result of our valid referendum?

 

That's not exactly true though, is it.

 

For starters, many of us never got to vote on that referendum, on account of being too young or not born, etc. Also, what you voted for back in the 70s was not what we have now. If people had been told that in 40 odd years, a consequence of European Union would have been a massive influx of people from Eastern Europe, competing for UK jobs, you'd have been lucky to get one third saying yes.

 

So in answer to your question, I'm not saying we should ignore the outcome of a referendum, but equally, we can't have things set in stone. A lot has changed since the referendum of the 1970s, enough to warrant a re-examination of the question.

 

As for the Irish referendum, it's not even the same thing. The Irish re-voted on essentially the same package of measures, largely because, as you point out, the people in Brussels didn't like the original outcome. It's not the same as suggesting that we reexamine a decision that was taken almost forty years ago, particularly when the landscape has changed so much.

[Lord Duckhunter]

We were given a vote on remaining in a "common market". The present EU is a long long way from the "common market" that we were given a vote on.

 

The whole thing has been one big con job, and Tory Euro loons like Heath, Hestletine, Patten and Clake have made it worse by stiffling opposition from within the party.From the very outset the British people were misled. Had they realised their fishing industry would be decimated,vast areas of Sovereignty would be lost, countries like Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, and Slovenia would join.They would have voted to come out.

 

The very same people who have championed further European integration for years were the same idiots who wanted us to join the Euro.

[Kingsland Codger]

I quoted the wording of the 1975 referendum precisely to ensure all those who read this thread know what was voted on. The wording was taken from the History Learning website and the BBC website.

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1975_referendum_EEC.htm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm

 

I repeat the wording below.

 

"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?"

 

No mention of 'Economic' Community and the words Common Market were in brackets.

 

I was a 19 year old student at the time and the topic was a huge nationwide debate. The buzz-word at the time was 'sovereignty' - and the idea of losing some/much of it certainly wasn't expected.

 

pap in post number 15 makes many very valid points.

 

The very idea of any Eastern European country being involved in the EC (as it was then widely known) would have been laughed out-of-court.

 

The broader question (which was also the topic of much debate in 1975) was the validity of the concept of a Referendum. It has been established what was voted on in 1975 is not what currently exists; further, those changes could not have been foreseen at that time. Given the changed landscape, what makes

anyone think the landscape won't change again in the next 40 years?

 

So, therefore, what is the point of having another Referendum? In as little as 10 years time things might (probably will have) change(d) again - so we'll have another vote just because some newspaper huff-and-puffs about it?

 

Ditch the idea of a Referendum. All that is shown is a snapshot of views at a given time.

 

Allow a selected (rather than elected) 'brains-trust' who will discuss-and-debate the issue and then instruct Parliament of the pros-and-cons. Ensure our MPs pay attention to what the brains-trust tell them (no nodding off over a large glass of port after an afternoon filling in an expenses form) and then let the MPs vote in a secret ballot (to avoid pressure being put upon them).

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Maastricht Treaty established the European Union under its present guise in 1993, it was a far cry from what was voted on previously. If we follow your theory, we could have further European Federalism, or even join the Euro without the need for a vote, on the basis that we were asked if we wanted to leave an entirely different organsation, with different members 40+ years ago.

 

It is that sort of thinking and arguement that has rail roaded us into where we are today. The European project has never been about what the people of Europe want (particulary UK)but about what a few select band of fanatics think is best for us.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter

[pedg]

The European project has never been about what the people of Europe want (particulary UK)but about what a few select band of fanatics think is best for us.

 

Funnily that's how I would describe UKIP.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Funnily that's how I would describe UKIP.

 

Difference is UKIP what their views put to the test with a vote.

 

And I would hardly call the party that came second in the last European elections a "select few", what does that make the pro European Lib/Dems and Labour parties which came 3rd and 4th?

[pap]

I quoted the wording of the 1975 referendum precisely to ensure all those who read this thread know what was voted on. The wording was taken from the History Learning website and the BBC website.

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1975_referendum_EEC.htm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm

 

I repeat the wording below.

 

"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?"

 

No mention of 'Economic' Community and the words Common Market were in brackets.

 

I was a 19 year old student at the time and the topic was a huge nationwide debate. The buzz-word at the time was 'sovereignty' - and the idea of losing some/much of it certainly wasn't expected.

 

pap in post number 15 makes many very valid points.

 

The very idea of any Eastern European country being involved in the EC (as it was then widely known) would have been laughed out-of-court.

 

The broader question (which was also the topic of much debate in 1975) was the validity of the concept of a Referendum. It has been established what was voted on in 1975 is not what currently exists; further, those changes could not have been foreseen at that time. Given the changed landscape, what makes

anyone think the landscape won't change again in the next 40 years?

 

So, therefore, what is the point of having another Referendum? In as little as 10 years time things might (probably will have) change(d) again - so we'll have another vote just because some newspaper huff-and-puffs about it?

 

Ditch the idea of a Referendum. All that is shown is a snapshot of views at a given time.

 

Allow a selected (rather than elected) 'brains-trust' who will discuss-and-debate the issue and then instruct Parliament of the pros-and-cons. Ensure our MPs pay attention to what the brains-trust tell them (no nodding off over a large glass of port after an afternoon filling in an expenses form) and then let the MPs vote in a secret ballot (to avoid pressure being put upon them).

 

Those are laudable sentiments, but we have tried similar approaches in other areas. Take a look at Labour's review of drug policy for example. They put together a team of people to come up with a fresh assessment, then completely ignored that assessment because it wasn't the answer that they wanted to hear.

 

I'd argue that a referendum is the sole mechanism through which we can make a decision on the European Union. Cameron is on the record as not wanting his party members to "obsess" over the issue. Blair and Brown dithered over the issue. Parliament just doesn't seem interested in addressing the question.

 

Now, I'm not a fan of the Daily Express - and my skepticism on the European project has taken a very long time to gestate. Ten years ago, I was firmly in the pro-European camp. Now, I'm not so sure. I'm alarmed at the amount of legislation that is being created, especially as very few media outlets want to shine a light on some of the shadier aspects of the EU. Too much stuff happens away from the public eye, lacks proper scrutiny and the EU has shown that it is not afraid to pull a fast one when it really wants to get its own way. The EU Constitution/EU Treaty is a very good example of this. The EU couldn't achieve its objectives through the mechanism of constitutional change, so bundled up the same vision into a series of treaty changes, and then asked countries to vote again when they "got it wrong", as happened in Ireland.

 

If we leave it to our elected MPs, the EU project will just grow in scope unchecked. History backs me up on this, as this is precisely what we've done, and precisely what has happened.

[Thedelldays]

I think on the surface the EU project is a sham

I mean, we now have a situation where nationals from countries we share very little/no real common ground can just rock up etc yet those nationals we do share lots of values, share similar society/culture experiences and even the same bloody head of state are not so welcome

 

 

weird..

[pedg]

Difference is UKIP what their views put to the test with a vote.

 

And I would hardly call the party that came second in the last European elections a "select few", what does that make the pro European Lib/Dems and Labour parties which came 3rd and 4th?

 

But to be a fair vote the voters have to have unbiased information on europe on which to base their decision and that is sadly not forthcoming in this country. Instead we have various groups such as the papers like the mail and the express and to a lesser extent the sun that have attempted to drive an opinion of europe by at most lying about and at least misrepresenting many european policies (take for example the scare story that the south of england was to merge with the north of france when in fact it was just a cooperation zone that had been going on for ages without any voices being raised). This has lead to a very negative opinion of europe which has not be countered by opposite opinions as the main parties think, I suspect, that arguing against these stories is counter productive for their chances of election. The end result is that the a large proportion of public just do not have a balanced view of what being in europe entails. This gives rise to popularist anti-european parties such as UKIP.

 

I believe that if the public were given a less bias view of the advantages of the EU against what would happen if we were to leave that they would vote to stay but given the difficulty in gaining a level playing field I would rather we continued in rather that the uncertainly of leaving based on the rantings of the leader writers of the Mail and Express.

[um pahars]

THE Daily Express crusade for Britain to quit the European Union scored a huge victory yesterday when MPs agreed to hold an historic debate on the issue.

 

Having seen how the Daily Express works (from the inside), I'm afraid that I would almost automatically disagree with anything that it comes out in favour of as a matter of principle. Shockingly bad.

 

However, on this one, I'm most definitely up for a full, frank and informed debate (hence ruling out the Daily Express) about our role in the EU, the pros and the cons.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

All going to be a bit moot once the Germans stir again and the Deutsche Marks start rolling off the presses. Going to be every man for himself again, wait and see.

[Lord Duckhunter]

But to be a fair vote the voters have to have unbiased information on europe on which to base their decision and that is sadly not forthcoming in this country. Instead we have various groups such as the papers like the mail and the express and to a lesser extent the sun that have attempted to drive an opinion of europe by at most lying about and at least misrepresenting many european policies (take for example the scare story that the south of england was to merge with the north of france when in fact it was just a cooperation zone that had been going on for ages without any voices being raised). This has lead to a very negative opinion of europe which has not be countered by opposite opinions as the main parties think, I suspect, that arguing against these stories is counter productive for their chances of election. The end result is that the a large proportion of public just do not have a balanced view of what being in europe entails. This gives rise to popularist anti-european parties such as UKIP.

 

I believe that if the public were given a less bias view of the advantages of the EU against what would happen if we were to leave that they would vote to stay but given the difficulty in gaining a level playing field I would rather we continued in rather that the uncertainly of leaving based on the rantings of the leader writers of the Mail and Express.

 

So what you are saying is that the average man should be denied a vote on Europe because he is too stupid to understand and is easily led by some national papers. You on the other hand understand perfectly as I presume all the other pro Europeans do. Remind me again where all these knowledable pro Europeans stood on the issue of the Euro, and where the ranting leader writers of the Mail and Express stood?

 

Everytime greater powers are given to the EU member countries are either denied a vote, or given one, but told to vote again until they get the right result.

 

For 15 years running the EU accounts have not be signed off by auditors, and yet we keep pouring our hard earned money down that particular drain WITHOUT A SAY. In 50 years time when the whole thing has fallen apart our children will shake their heads in disbelief that so called knowledable people thought this a good idea.

[Wes Tender]

 

So, therefore, what is the point of having another Referendum? In as little as 10 years time things might (probably will have) change(d) again - so we'll have another vote just because some newspaper huff-and-puffs about it?

 

Ditch the idea of a Referendum. All that is shown is a snapshot of views at a given time.

 

Allow a selected (rather than elected) 'brains-trust' who will discuss-and-debate the issue and then instruct Parliament of the pros-and-cons. Ensure our MPs pay attention to what the brains-trust tell them (no nodding off over a large glass of port after an afternoon filling in an expenses form) and then let the MPs vote in a secret ballot (to avoid pressure being put upon them).

 

What a load of cobblers! So the political landscape might change in the next 10 years, so there's no point in bothering? So why also bother with Parliamentary elections? After all, the political landscape will have changed there too, even in half that time. And as to the naivety of the suggestion that some sort of "brains trust" will sermonise on the matter of Europe and instruct the MPs on how to proceed, who precisely will these "brains" be and who will select them? Talk about pie in the sky! And I can see the MPs, supposedly elected to represent the wishes of their voters, kow-towing to some collective of unelected cognoscenti. As for the secret ballot, do you really believe that the voting public should be deprived of the knowledge of which way their MP voted?

 

No, the only solution is a Referendum. As others have pointed out, the original referendum had no bearing on the way that Europe has evolved since, from a trading partnership to almost a United States of Europe. Major constitutional changes like this cannot be left to MPs, who immerse them into their manifestos and expect the voters to go along with it because they also vote on that party's policies on taxation, education, defence, law and order, etc. and then when elected, state that the electorate has given them a mandate on Europe. If a change to the voting system is deemed worthy of a referendum, so should our membership of the EU.

 

Communication technology in this day and age has changed significantly. A newspaper can campaign to get a referendum, but it is also feasible that something like a Facebook campaign or emails to the PM could be very effective to get the refendum forced onto the political agenda. If a substantial percentage of the British electorate were to sign on to an initiative like that, the Government would have no alternative but to give in the that public opinion. When the billionaire Goldsmith formed his Referendum Party, had he reined in his ego and desire to lead his own party, he could easily have financed his own referendum on Europe. Had the government not wished to be excluded from it, they would have been forced to hold an official refendum, or else abide with the decision of the public had a significant number of votes been cast in favour of leaving the EU.

[dronskisaint]

Dune said

 

....'people like Nigel Farage speaking the truth against career politicians i'd be very optimistic.'

 

You see - I might have taken this thread seriously if you hadn't written that...even Farage realises he's a comic strip idiot figure!

 

Only might have, mark you....

[Wes Tender]

But to be a fair vote the voters have to have unbiased information on europe on which to base their decision and that is sadly not forthcoming in this country. Instead we have various groups such as the papers like the mail and the express and to a lesser extent the sun that have attempted to drive an opinion of europe by at most lying about and at least misrepresenting many european policies (take for example the scare story that the south of england was to merge with the north of france when in fact it was just a cooperation zone that had been going on for ages without any voices being raised). This has lead to a very negative opinion of europe which has not be countered by opposite opinions as the main parties think, I suspect, that arguing against these stories is counter productive for their chances of election. The end result is that the a large proportion of public just do not have a balanced view of what being in europe entails. This gives rise to popularist anti-european parties such as UKIP.

 

I believe that if the public were given a less bias view of the advantages of the EU against what would happen if we were to leave that they would vote to stay but given the difficulty in gaining a level playing field I would rather we continued in rather that the uncertainly of leaving based on the rantings of the leader writers of the Mail and Express.

 

You've got to love the arrogance of certain people who would ignore the opinions of the general public on grounds that they dodn't know what they are talking about.

 

You do not consider the possibility that we remain in Europe solely for the purposes of trade, but nothing else. That was the original purpose of the Common Market which was supported by the British public. So to get the result you want against bureaucrats, you speak softly and carry a big stick. The big stick in this instance being a threat to leave the EU altogether unless our position can be renegotiated to one of trade only. What would be the disadvantages of that?

[pap]

But to be a fair vote the voters have to have unbiased information on europe on which to base their decision and that is sadly not forthcoming in this country. Instead we have various groups such as the papers like the mail and the express and to a lesser extent the sun that have attempted to drive an opinion of europe by at most lying about and at least misrepresenting many european policies (take for example the scare story that the south of england was to merge with the north of france when in fact it was just a cooperation zone that had been going on for ages without any voices being raised). This has lead to a very negative opinion of europe which has not be countered by opposite opinions as the main parties think, I suspect, that arguing against these stories is counter productive for their chances of election. The end result is that the a large proportion of public just do not have a balanced view of what being in europe entails. This gives rise to popularist anti-european parties such as UKIP.

 

I believe that if the public were given a less bias view of the advantages of the EU against what would happen if we were to leave that they would vote to stay but given the difficulty in gaining a level playing field I would rather we continued in rather that the uncertainly of leaving based on the rantings of the leader writers of the Mail and Express.

 

No-one is going to deny that certain sections of the press have been guilty of peddling crap or using hyperbole to boost sales.

 

That said, they get away with it because there is very little public awareness of the issues, and very little criticism from the mainstream political parties. The most that you tend to get from them is that Europe is a major trading partner, along with the implication that membership of the EU is the only way we can retain that trading relationship.

 

If the public don't have a good idea of what being in the EU entails, then we need to ask why. For what it's worth, I recognise that there are a lot of positives that membership confers, but also, the arrangement comes with a lot of strings attached. The Tories went on about immigration caps during the election, yet the fact is that theoretically, we could have 500 million people legally move into the country. Ok, that's an extreme example and is not really on the cards, but membership of the EU places plenty of strain on all aspects of British life, whether it's competition in the labour market or the additional resources required to deal with the social consequences of allowing hundreds of thousands of people to come to this country to live and work.

 

Ultimately, this country has a lot of problems to address. We should be asking whether the EU is a help or a hindrance in resolving these difficulties, and have a balanced debate with the best interests of the country at the forefront.

[pedg]

You've got to love the arrogance of certain people who would ignore the opinions of the general public on grounds that they dodn't know what they are talking about.

 

You do not consider the possibility that we remain in Europe solely for the purposes of trade, but nothing else. That was the original purpose of the Common Market which was supported by the British public. So to get the result you want against bureaucrats, you speak softly and carry a big stick. The big stick in this instance being a threat to leave the EU altogether unless our position can be renegotiated to one of trade only. What would be the disadvantages of that?

 

I do not believe it is a feasible option to stay in the EU for trade only purposed and drop all the other parts of what being an EU member entails so it is an infeasible solution thus I did not consider it no. We have SIGNED up to a number of agreements. To try and get all the other parties to agree to let us leave or renegotiate all the important ones is incredibly unlikely. It could be considered that we are trying to gain an unfair advantage by trading within the EU while abandoning legislation such as the maximum number of hours worked etc. Why would other countries allow us to do that? No I think the only option are 'In, as we are' or 'Out'.

[Thedelldays]

I do not believe it is a feasible option to stay in the EU for trade only purposed and drop all the other parts of what being an EU member entails so it is an infeasible solution thus I did not consider it no. We have SIGNED up to a number of agreements. To try and get all the other parties to agree to let us leave or renegotiate all the important ones is incredibly unlikely. It could be considered that we are trying to gain an unfair advantage by trading within the EU while abandoning legislation such as the maximum number of hours worked etc. Why would other countries allow us to do that? No I think the only option are 'In, as we are' or 'Out'.

because we are one of the worlds largest importers/exporters....do you think that will stop?

[pap]

I do not believe it is a feasible option to stay in the EU for trade only purposed and drop all the other parts of what being an EU member entails so it is an infeasible solution thus I did not consider it no. We have SIGNED up to a number of agreements. To try and get all the other parties to agree to let us leave or renegotiate all the important ones is incredibly unlikely. It could be considered that we are trying to gain an unfair advantage by trading within the EU while abandoning legislation such as the maximum number of hours worked etc. Why would other countries allow us to do that? No I think the only option are 'In, as we are' or 'Out'.

 

So why EU specifically?

 

Why not EFTA?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Europe wouldn't stop trading with us just because we left the EU. It's a global economy now and any loss of money through leaving would be balanced out by not paying millions and millions in every year. That's just my opinion, and others have theirs.

 

Why are the Euro loons so afraid of airing theirs, persuading people and putting their opinions to the vote? Any vote would be covered by strict election law, we could have a debate and let the British people decide. I know it's not very "European" to want a say in how we're governed,but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

[pedg]

because we are one of the worlds largest importers/exporters....do you think that will stop?

 

I believe that if we leave the EU the paperwork etc involved in exporting to europe will increase. If we left I would expect our imports and exports with the EU to decrease.

 

Additionally I believe that we really too much on financial services than we should and many of the foreign banks have their european headquarters in the UK. Would that change if we were no longer in the EU. Paris or Berlin would be falling over themselves to offer then a headquarters in the EU.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by pedg

[pedg]

Europe wouldn't stop trading with us just because we left the EU. It's a global economy now and any loss of money through leaving would be balanced out by not paying millions and millions in every year. That's just my opinion, and others have theirs.

 

Why are the Euro loons so afraid of airing theirs, persuading people and putting their opinions to the vote? Any vote would be covered by strict election law, we could have a debate and let the British people decide. I know it's not very "European" to want a say in how we're governed,but I guess I'm just old fashioned.

 

Lets look back the fear, uncertainty and doubt, let alone the lies about costs etc being peddles by the FPTP side for the recent voting reform referendum to show why these things are never a fair as they should be.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by pedg

[pedg]

So why EU specifically?

 

Why not EFTA?

 

Ah. EFTA that counts broke Iceland and the Principality of Liechtenstein as half their membership. We would definitely be a big fish is a small pond then!

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lets look back the fear, uncertainty and doubt, let alone the lies about costs etc being peddles by the FTPT side for the recent voting reform referendum to show why these things are never a fair as they should be.

 

What have you got against the British people's opinion?

 

One man's lie is another man's fact. I heard plenty of what I consider lies from the pro AV side.

 

If your going to deny people votes on the basis of truth, uncertainty and doubt, let's do away with General elections and just let clever people like you decide our leaders.

[pedg]

What have you got against the British people's opinion?

 

Nothing as long as it is not being cynically manipulated by one side of the argument.

 

let's do away with General elections and just let clever people like you elect our leaders.

 

Sounds good to me

[Wes Tender]

I do not believe it is a feasible option to stay in the EU for trade only purposed and drop all the other parts of what being an EU member entails so it is an infeasible solution thus I did not consider it no. We have SIGNED up to a number of agreements. To try and get all the other parties to agree to let us leave or renegotiate all the important ones is incredibly unlikely. It could be considered that we are trying to gain an unfair advantage by trading within the EU while abandoning legislation such as the maximum number of hours worked etc. Why would other countries allow us to do that? No I think the only option are 'In, as we are' or 'Out'.

 

So you think that if we left the EU, the Germans would cease to want us buying their Audis, Mercedes, BMWs, Volkwagens? The Italians would cease to sell us fridges, washing machines and their cars, the French would stop supplying us with their glut of apples, wines, cheeses, their cars, etc?

 

And so the line is trotted out that if we are to continue trading, we have to have all of the other incumbrances that we signed up for? Well, treaties can be changed or renegotiated. Trade deals can be established on the basis of tit for tat, you take our manufactured goods and produce and we take an equal amount of yours. There might not be the political will to go down that road, but if the voice of the people becomes a crescendo, that political will will soon materialise. As for European legislation, we would set our own laws, ones that have been voted through our Parliamentary democratic system, rather than those imposed on us against our will by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

And why shouldn't we try and gain some unfair competitive advantage? We get stuffed by our European competitors with their agricultural subsidies and conversely have quotas forced on some of our industries to our disadvantage.

 

Given your ultimatum, either in or out, then count me as being within the out group.

[Viking Warrior]

Loed Duckhunter thankyou for the history refresher.

 

I thought it was the common market we voted on, and not the european union. Aspects of Maastricht were challenged by John Major /Maggie Thatcher and we had the right of veto. i think it was Blair and brown that somewhat caved in to the european parliment and gave away powers

[pedg]

So you think that if we left the EU, the Germans would cease to want us buying their Audis, Mercedes, BMWs, Volkwagens? The Italians would cease to sell us fridges, washing machines and their cars, the French would stop supplying us with their glut of apples, wines, cheeses, their cars, etc?

 

And so the line is trotted out that if we are to continue trading, we have to have all of the other incumbrances that we signed up for? Well, treaties can be changed or renegotiated. Trade deals can be established on the basis of tit for tat, you take our manufactured goods and produce and we take an equal amount of yours. There might not be the political will to go down that road, but if the voice of the people becomes a crescendo, that political will will soon materialise. As for European legislation, we would set our own laws, ones that have been voted through our Parliamentary democratic system, rather than those imposed on us against our will by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

 

And why shouldn't we try and gain some unfair competitive advantage? We get stuffed by our European competitors with their agricultural subsidies and conversely have quotas forced on some of our industries to our disadvantage.

 

Given your ultimatum, either in or out, then count me as being within the out group.

 

I am sure trade would continue as we would still buy cars from abroad (given we hardly make any ourselves). The question is would someone in the EU buy something from the UK where there is extra paperwork and the variance in the exchange rate compared to buying a similar item from within the eu. Find me a quote from a trade group that represents exporters to say they think it would be okay to leave the EU?

 

Our balance of payments deficit even as it is shows that trade deals are not 'tit for tat'. Often they are to protect the internal produces of similar items and in many cases are close to protectionism. Anyway trade deals apply in few cases in most its is 'free trade' when you are at the whim of the markets.

 

My point was to renegotiate we would need the agreement of the other countries. If the other countries see we are trying to gain an advantage why would they agree to the renegotiation.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by pedg

[Thedelldays]

I am sure trade would continue as we would still buy cars from abroad (given we hardly make any ourselves). The question is would someone in the EU buy something from the UK where there is extra paperwork and the variance in the exchange rate compared to buying a similar item from within the eu. Find me a quote from a trade group that represents exporters to say they think it would be okay to leave the EU?

 

Our balance of payments deficit even as it is shows that trade deals are not 'tit for tat'. Often they are to protect the internal produces of similar items and in many cases are close to protectionism.

 

My point was to renegotiate we would need the agreement of the other countries. If the other countries see we are trying to gain an advantage why would they agree to the renegotiation.

why does there have to be extra paper work...we are one of the worlds largest exporters.....we must be a nightmare to deal with...

[hypochondriac]

We were given a vote on remaining in a "common market". The present EU is a long long way from the "common market" that we were given a vote on.

 

The whole thing has been one big con job, and Tory Euro loons like Heath, Hestletine, Patten and Clake have made it worse by stiffling opposition from within the party.From the very outset the British people were misled. Had they realised their fishing industry would be decimated,vast areas of Sovereignty would be lost, countries like Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, and Slovenia would join.They would have voted to come out.

 

The very same people who have championed further European integration for years were the same idiots who wanted us to join the Euro.

 

So true. My grandparents especially feel let down and conned by successive governments. In their nineties now and survivors of the war, it just doesn't seem right. They no longer think much of the Britain they fought to save.

[um pahars]

Loed Duckhunter thankyou for the history refresher.

 

I thought it was the common market we voted on, and not the european union. Aspects of Maastricht were challenged by John Major /Maggie Thatcher and we had the right of veto. i think it was Blair and brown that somewhat caved in to the european parliment and gave away powers

 

The single biggest change regarding Europe in recent years was Maastricht, overseen by a then Conservative Govenrment.

 

Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon that followed were all amendments, but for me it was Maastricht and the establishment of the EU that was the major landmark (and if anything Brown should be commended for stopping us from entering the Euro, when many were pushing for it).

[pedg]

why does there have to be extra paper work...we are one of the worlds largest exporters.....we must be a nightmare to deal with...

 

Because deals within the EU are simpler than deals from someone within the EU and someone outside the EU. For example I believe the situation with custom regulations is different?

[Thedelldays]

Because deals within the EU are simpler than deals from someone within the EU and someone outside the EU. For example I believe the situation with custom regulations is different?

so, explain all this paper work for us..?

[pedg]

so, explain all this paper work for us..?

 

One of the initial reasons for setting up the EU was to make trading within it easier yet you don't think that moving out of the EU would make trading harder? Even those above supporting withdrawing from the EU recognise the advantages of being inside for trading purposes.

Edited 4 October, 2011 by pedg

[pedg]

Whilst we are on (or were on) the subject of just making things up to try and disparage something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/04/theresa-may-clashes-judges-cat

The home secretary, Theresa May, walked straight into a clash with senior judges on Tuesday after claiming that the Human Rights Act was responsible for blocking the deportation of an illegal immigrant because he had a pet cat.

May promised the Tory party conference that she was not making the story up, but the judicial communications office, which represents senior judges, insisted the story was not true, and had told May's department as much.

"This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy – applying at that time to that appellant – for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK," said a judicial communications office statement issued at the time of the case.

"That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunal decision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision," said a spokeswoman.

 

[Saintandy666]

We want to be in Europe, not out of it and the EU brings us many benefits within our life. - http://www.whathaseuropedone.eu/

 

I genuinely think though, that if there is a referendum we would end up voting to stay in once the heavyweights get involved and start presenting the truth.

 

It would effectively be; Everyone established in politics vs. Nigel Farage and some Tory MP's + the Express and the Mail.