EU debate k/o 4.30

[SO16_Saint]

ha ha, can we come round for tea?

 

BTW your garden needs a good tidy.

 

(only joking - just a street map came up and can't remember it now.)

 

Ha!!

 

Pop in whenever....!

 

And if it brought up a google map pic, it's about 4 years out of date!

 

It's much nicer now. I have grass and everything...

[Saintandy666]

And on my EU/American parallel earlier... of course most Americans now consider their country BEFORE their state now, but surely/maybe it wasn't such a clean cut affair 250 years ago(historians correct me here)! What's to say after 250 years of a 'U.S.E', that wouldn't be the case then? All hypothetical of course, and I'm not saying whether I want a U.S.E or not.

 

Remember, Nationalism is a psychological phenomenon which exists largely in peoples heads. As Benedict Anderson said, Nations are 'imagined communities'. What's not to say that a government can't slowly shove a new one into people''s consciousness? Nation-building isn't new.

 

And I'm not necessarily supporting this, jus' sayin.

Edited 24 October, 2011 by Saintandy666

[Deano6]

250 years ago the inhabitants of the 13 colonies certainly did consider themselves Americans at the time they signed the declaration of independence from the British, rather than Delawarians, Rhode Islandians etc. But then they were all united at the time in wanting to free themselves of the taxes that were being used to pay for their protection from the French (ungrateful bastards!). As someone above said they also didn't have much history so went about building a nation from scratch as one, which would be very different for Europe.

 

However fast forward 100 years and the Confederate states did want to break away to keep their slaves, so in a way didn't consider themselves "American" although it's not quite the same as being separate independent states. Texans still are a species unto their own and a lot even now want them to secede (as many as 25% in one poll) so may well describe themselves as Texan first.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html

 

 

Incidentally it's funny how secession was perfectly legal for the Yanks when they wanted to leave the Empire, but was all of a sudden not ok when some of their own wanted to form an independent nation!

 

 

 

Having said all that, I don't have a problem with the idea of a mild form of United States of Europe. Works quite well out here (political system aside) and States are still able to maintain some autonomy and a strong sense of identity (perhaps what Andy was getting at).

[Whitey Grandad]

Pesky Little Englanders! Still living in the past. Some of us are trying to get on with forging a new World Order.

[Frank's cousin]

Troule with referenda is that it allows everyone a vote who spends absolutely feck all time understanding and considering the issue, or even taking time to ignore the propoganda from both sides and evaluate the issue dispassionately... as we saw with AV, a watered down option that was poorly explained and with messaging that prayed on peoples fears rather than providing detailed information.... Same would happen with any such vote on the EU... and having it now would be scandalous, no different from having one on capital punishment the day after a child is abducted and murdered...

 

As much as it sounds elitist, you cant get away from the fact that there are many eligable to vote who wont have the standard of education to understand all the issues in play - not just nasty Brussels telling us what to do.... it may be democratic but it leads to decsion making based on emotion and not reason. Its why we elect a government to make these decsions on our behalf. If we dont like it, we vote them out next time but referenda is a government 'cop out' from taking a decision, that they know will cause rifts within their own party and its supporters - The Torries have ALWAYS struggled with the EU... it pulls them in diffrent directions, the nationalist feck wits oppose any EU legislative powers or losing the queen's head from the pound note, whereas the capitalistic driven 'business' community appreciates the benefits of an open market....and the money to be made... its great always seeing them sweat on this issue!

[dubai_phil]

So, by tomorrow, Europe's elite will have to come up with a plan that fundamentally changes the inner workings of the Eurozone.

 

Another core change to the original ideal of the European Union.

 

Legislation continues to bury UK PLC with laws now coming from two sources as fat cats justify their roles by passing new rules that the French ignore & the UK spends a fortune on inspectors to implement.

 

The EU is without a doubt a solid concept. It's adoption of a Single Currency was a wise idea. It was just that the IMPLEMENTATION of the Euro was so fundamentally flawed and much legislation is brought in without thought.

 

And yet, in tumultuous days when the very core of the Eurozone HAS to change in order to survive, debate about what could and should be our role in Europe and how we could influence the greater (ie all) of the EU seems to have been brushed aside in analogies of burning bridges.

 

Surely IF the Eurozone HAS to change then this was also the RIGHT time for a "Rebellion" and for people to look at a greater Holistic approach to changing the EU for the better? But no it became a simple assert Power for National Political purposes issue and screwed up some people's careers.

 

The EU is flawed, the Euro was fatally flawed by the insane National Pride which set the initial exchange rates and then the abject failure of Governance while countries ignored the rules on membership. And yet there is no great vision to make it better. The majority of the population according to last nights' Sky News Polls want out. Don't bame them, because at the MOMENT it is a mess.

 

Let's face it, the only people who have really benefitted from the Euro are the Germans by artificially keeping their currency (and exports) down, no wonder they fight to break their own laws to keep it. Hell even the French are all but screwed now after years of doing well - their banks are a mess.

 

Shame it was just a debate about In or Out (which was ALWAYS going to be to stay IN) and not a wider debate about what the real way to solve the whole mess would be.

 

(eg save Billions a year by cutting the central civil service and costly rules)

[Saint in Paradise]

Perhaps it is time for another "Guy Fawkes", but only if "he" is successful this time.

[pap]

I listened to the whole debate last night. First, let me say this. Any MP that used the issue of Europe to bait its constituents during an election that voted no yesterday is utterly compromised at this point. William Hague is utterly compromised. Any MP who decided to waste Parliament's time by half-heartedly explaining why they were voting no is even worse.

 

Actually, any MP who voted no yesterday is a disgrace, and has denied the British voter of a voice.

 

The timing point came out in the debate yesterday. Several MPs noted that there is never going to be a good time. If we wait until we regain some of our prosperity ( i.e. not in this Parliament ), then people will say "but we're doing so well - we shouldn't leave now". Others in the "No" camp were banging on about some mythical future opportunity to get out. It's all a load of crap. There is never going to be a 'good' time to leave the EU, just as there is never a good time to leave any sort of relationship.

 

I suspect the truth of it is that despite all the rhetoric about building a better Britain, these people are sh-t scared of the potential consequences and believe that this country incapable of living without membership of the EU. For many MPs, the EU is a handy get-out clause ( my hands are tied because of the EU ) that they've been relying on for decades. I don't think that many of them would actually be able to handle the running of an independent country.

 

This isn't going away anytime soon. I'll be interested to see how the more rabid right-wing organs of press deal with the results.

[solentstars]

i think the debate showed that the nutty right of the tory party are still obsessed over Europe and the knives are out for cameron who they hate to liberal for all these buffoons ,i think most people have more important things to worry about like jobs,their pensions,energy and petrol costs and how the banks are still ripping of the taxpayer.

[Saintandy666]

250 years ago the inhabitants of the 13 colonies certainly did consider themselves Americans at the time they signed the declaration of independence from the British, rather than Delawarians, Rhode Islandians etc. But then they were all united at the time in wanting to free themselves of the taxes that were being used to pay for their protection from the French (ungrateful bastards!). As someone above said they also didn't have much history so went about building a nation from scratch as one, which would be very different for Europe.

 

However fast forward 100 years and the Confederate states did want to break away to keep their slaves, so in a way didn't consider themselves "American" although it's not quite the same as being separate independent states. Texans still are a species unto their own and a lot even now want them to secede (as many as 25% in one poll) so may well describe themselves as Texan first.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html

 

 

Incidentally it's funny how secession was perfectly legal for the Yanks when they wanted to leave the Empire, but was all of a sudden not ok when some of their own wanted to form an independent nation!

 

 

 

Having said all that, I don't have a problem with the idea of a mild form of United States of Europe. Works quite well out here (political system aside) and States are still able to maintain some autonomy and a strong sense of identity (perhaps what Andy was getting at).

 

Excellent post, and yes, my point was there are strong state identities still as well as America's famous patriotism! But that is all in the mind.

 

Never realised quite so many Texans wanted to secede.

 

Sent from my HTC Hero using Tapatalk

[pap]

i think the debate showed that the nutty right of the tory party are still obsessed over Europe and the knives are out for cameron who they hate to liberal for all these buffoons ,i think most people have more important things to worry about like jobs,their pensions,energy and petrol costs and how the banks are still ripping of the taxpayer.

 

I dunno. Most of us are capable of juggling several priorities, solentstars.

 

I care about all the things you mention. Doesn't stop me from having a view on the EU. In fact, the only people who have stopped me from having a vote are the hypocritical cowards who put their career prospects over a chance for direct democracy.

 

The fact is that all three parties offered referenda on the EU constitution, but weaseled out of those commitments, despite the fact that the same measures were put in place through the Lisbon Treaty. They are using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of it, and have said outright that they do not trust the British public with its own future on this matter.

[ecuk268]

They are using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of it, and have said outright that they do not trust the British public with its own future on this matter.

 

Your last sentence raises an interesting question.

 

Should the public be allowed to decide on matters of which many have them have no great knowledge but which could have considerable effects on the country.

 

The EU question is extremely complex and certain sections of the press have their own agenda and print stories which are blatantly untrue (the banning of Bombay Mix was invented by a small Belgian newspaper who then sold it to gullible papers like the Sun and the Mail who didn't bother to check it).

 

Could a referendum be phrased in such a way that the voters would be aware of all of the possible effects of staying in or coming out?

[Saintandy666]

I dunno. Most of us are capable of juggling several priorities, solentstars.

 

I care about all the things you mention. Doesn't stop me from having a view on the EU. In fact, the only people who have stopped me from having a vote are the hypocritical cowards who put their career prospects over a chance for direct democracy.

 

The fact is that all three parties offered referenda on the EU constitution, but weaseled out of those commitments, despite the fact that the same measures were put in place through the Lisbon Treaty. They are using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of it, and have said outright that they do not trust the British public with its own future on this matter.

 

We don't live in a direct democracy though. I'm all for referenda, but we don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a delegate based representative democracy. We elect our governments to get on with it, and if we are annoyed we get to vote them out. That is sadly the case in our democracy, and there is no protection in our country from anything. If parliament voted tomorrow to abolish all rights, it would be put into action(the supreme court is a charade at the moment). That would never happen in the US.

 

But I've gone off the point. Basically, the MPs who voted against aren't cheating the system or anything, they are keeping to the system. If we want more referenda(and are big pros and cons) as the norm we need to change the system.

 

Also, the Liberal democrats abstained from that vote.

[pap]

We don't live in a direct democracy though. I'm all for referenda, but we don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a delegate based representative democracy. We elect our governments to get on with it, and if we are annoyed we get to vote them out. That is sadly the case in our democracy, and there is no protection in our country from anything. If parliament voted tomorrow to abolish all rights, it would be put into action(the supreme court is a charade at the moment). That would never happen in the US.

 

But I've gone off the point. Basically, the MPs who voted against aren't cheating the system or anything, they are keeping to the system. If we want more referenda(and are big pros and cons) as the norm we need to change the system.

 

Also, the Liberal democrats abstained from that vote.

 

You've made the point about not having direct democracy before, Andy. I'm not sure how well it holds up in this instance. The debate was triggered through the e-petitions system, a mechanism designed to address some of the shortcomings of representative democracy.

 

Despite the calls for reform, the vast majority of MPs are not interested in changing the system, and every time the chance comes up, legions of them from all parties stand steadfast in support of the status quo. The system can't be seen as an excuse for their behaviour when they'll slavishly defend it as soon as their own interests are at stake.

Edited 25 October, 2011 by pap

[pap]

Your last sentence raises an interesting question.

 

Should the public be allowed to decide on matters of which many have them have no great knowledge but which could have considerable effects on the country.

 

The EU question is extremely complex and certain sections of the press have their own agenda and print stories which are blatantly untrue (the banning of Bombay Mix was invented by a small Belgian newspaper who then sold it to gullible papers like the Sun and the Mail who didn't bother to check it).

 

Could a referendum be phrased in such a way that the voters would be aware of all of the possible effects of staying in or coming out?

 

On the evidence of the last referendum, certainly not. Both sides of the debate will spread fear and mistruths.

[pap]

We don't live in a direct democracy though. I'm all for referenda, but we don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a delegate based representative democracy. We elect our governments to get on with it, and if we are annoyed we get to vote them out. That is sadly the case in our democracy, and there is no protection in our country from anything. If parliament voted tomorrow to abolish all rights, it would be put into action(the supreme court is a charade at the moment). That would never happen in the US.

 

But I've gone off the point. Basically, the MPs who voted against aren't cheating the system or anything, they are keeping to the system. If we want more referenda(and are big pros and cons) as the norm we need to change the system.

 

Also, the Liberal democrats abstained from that vote.

 

And FWIW, I don't think the EU situation is extremely complex. The only reason it appears so complex is that the institution itself is so bloody opaque and that our incumbent politicians are so focused on being seen to run the show that they deliberately obscure the extent of the EU's reach.

[Wade Garrett]

Troule with referenda is that it allows everyone a vote who spends absolutely feck all time understanding and considering the issue, or even taking time to ignore the propoganda from both sides and evaluate the issue dispassionately... as we saw with AV, a watered down option that was poorly explained and with messaging that prayed on peoples fears rather than providing detailed information.... Same would happen with any such vote on the EU... and having it now would be scandalous, no different from having one on capital punishment the day after a child is abducted and murdered...

 

As much as it sounds elitist, you cant get away from the fact that there are many eligable to vote who wont have the standard of education to understand all the issues in play - not just nasty Brussels telling us what to do.... it may be democratic but it leads to decsion making based on emotion and not reason. Its why we elect a government to make these decsions on our behalf. If we dont like it, we vote them out next time but referenda is a government 'cop out' from taking a decision, that they know will cause rifts within their own party and its supporters - The Torries have ALWAYS struggled with the EU... it pulls them in diffrent directions, the nationalist feck wits oppose any EU legislative powers or losing the queen's head from the pound note, whereas the capitalistic driven 'business' community appreciates the benefits of an open market....and the money to be made... its great always seeing them sweat on this issue!

 

Wouldn't becoming a trading partner in Europe, as Switzerland are, satisfy all of them?

[Saintandy666]

You've made the point about not having direct democracy before, Andy. I'm not sure how well it holds up in this instance. The debate was triggered through the e-petitions system, a mechanism designed to address some of the shortcomings of representative democracy.

 

Despite the calls for reform, the vast majority of MPs are not interested in changing the system, and every time the chance comes up, legions of them from all parties stand steadfast in support of the status quo. The system can't be seen as an excuse for their behaviour when they'll slavishly defend it as soon as their own interests are at stake.

 

True true(I have laboured it, but it's important to this issue), but the e-petitions only mean a debate(if approved by business committee), not the law into action. Personally, I quite like the system that they have in some countries that if enough people sign up for a referendum on an issue(say 10%), it is triggered. Actually a UKIP policy from the last election(albeit 5%).

 

And I agree with you, the system needs wholesale change. Comapred to other countries like say the US, we have little say in how our country is actually run.

Edited 25 October, 2011 by Saintandy666

[Saintandy666]

And FWIW, I don't think the EU situation is extremely complex. The only reason it appears so complex is that the institution itself is so bloody opaque and that our incumbent politicians are so focused on being seen to run the show that they deliberately obscure the extent of the EU's reach.

 

You're right, the EU isn't ridiculously complicated(at least the basics of how it is run and what laws come from it etc), but people still don't get it. And a lot of that is because of sensationalised statements made by certain black topped tabloids. A lot of people still don't seem to realise the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ which doesn't bode well.

[pap]

Wouldn't becoming a trading partner in Europe, as Switzerland are, satisfy all of them?

 

It probably would, and we'd probably get it if that was our objective.

[bridge too far]

Wouldn't becoming a trading partner in Europe, as Switzerland are, satisfy all of them?

 

I think, but don't know for sure, that we'd lose quite a lot of our exporting business. We win a lot of business ATM because we have to compete on a level playing field. In the same way as it should have been argued that localism should have featured in the award of the Bombadier contract, EU member states could argue that, for example, we wouldn't be able to compete if our employee rights were not the same as others who were IN the EU.

[Saintandy666]

If we wanted to be in the single market still, we'd still have to abide by a lot of EU law surely? The other members wouldn't just let us pick and choose....

[View From The Top]

Wouldn't becoming a trading partner in Europe, as Switzerland are, satisfy all of them?

 

Which, it were an option, would be the choice of the majority I reckon.

[CB Saint]

I think, but don't know for sure, that we'd lose quite a lot of our exporting business. We win a lot of business ATM because we have to compete on a level playing field. In the same way as it should have been argued that localism should have featured in the award of the Bombadier contract, EU member states could argue that, for example, we wouldn't be able to compete if our employee rights were not the same as others who were IN the EU.

 

Employee rights considerations don't stop Europe importing tonnes of chinese goods.

 

There is some middle ground here. The germans and french are still going to want to sell us renaults and bmws and they equally will want to continue to buy british goods. We don't need to be tied politically for that to happen.

[pap]

If we wanted to be in the single market still, we'd still have to abide by a lot of EU law surely? The other members wouldn't just let us pick and choose....

 

Then if that's the case, we find new trading partners. It won't be the case, but even if it were, it's not the end of the world.

 

My major client has a global customer base. For that reason, and that reason alone, it is doing very well at the moment. The Europeans might not be flush with cash, but they're making money hand over fist from Arab countries and operations in the Far East.

 

Europe is close, but vicinity isn't everything.

[CB Saint]

If we wanted to be in the single market still, we'd still have to abide by a lot of EU law surely? The other members wouldn't just let us pick and choose....

 

There would laws regarding anti trust and product quality to comply with for example, but the other stuff such as employee rights, human rights etc would be up to us to determine

[solentstars]

I think, but don't know for sure, that we'd lose quite a lot of our exporting business. We win a lot of business ATM because we have to compete on a level playing field. In the same way as it should have been argued that localism should have featured in the award of the Bombadier contract, EU member states could argue that, for example, we wouldn't be able to compete if our employee rights were not the same as others who were IN the EU.

 

I think that is more the truth and why the motion was soundly beaten because the national interest will always overide the fantasy that we can thrive outside the eu and not be involved while they make rules which would effect our export industry

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[bridge too far]

Employee rights considerations don't stop Europe importing tonnes of chinese goods.

 

There is some middle ground here. The germans and french are still going to want to sell us renaults and bmws and they equally will want to continue to buy british goods. We don't need to be tied politically for that to happen.

 

But that's mainly for trading by non-governmental / quasi governmental business. If, say, an NHS Trust, wanted lots of televisions, it would have to advertise in the EU for the goods. Non governmental businesses can do what the hell they like.

[Saintandy666]

There would laws regarding anti trust and product quality to comply with for example, but the other stuff such as employee rights, human rights etc would be up to us to determine

 

Okay, that's the theory. I just wonder how happy the rest of the EU members would be about that. Getting out of the EU would be extremely complex and costly and would take a couple of years probably.

 

I agree with Nick Clegg this morning, we should be leading Europe, not leaving it!

[CB Saint]

But that's mainly for trading by non-governmental / quasi governmental business. If, say, an NHS Trust, wanted lots of televisions, it would have to advertise in the EU for the goods. Non governmental businesses can do what the hell they like.

 

In the NHS trust case, do they have to prioritise eu manufactured goods or is it the wholesaler that needs to be EU. i.e do they have to choose grundig (if they still exist) over samsung for instance

[solentstars]

Okay, that's the theory. I just wonder how happy the rest of the EU members would be about that. Getting out of the EU would be extremely complex and costly and would take a couple of years probably.

 

I agree with Nick Clegg this morning, we should be leading Europe, not leaving it!

 

I agree but we always whinge I.m older enough to remember when the labour party were the anti eu party and the Tories pro Europe.we are not leaving the eu because no leader of the main parties will give up the national interest for fantasy logic.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[CB Saint]

Okay, that's the theory. I just wonder how happy the rest of the EU members would be about that. Getting out of the EU would be extremely complex and costly and would take a couple of years probably.

 

I agree with Nick Clegg this morning, we should be leading Europe, not leaving it!

 

The Germans and the French may have something to say about that. In fact Sarkozy did earlier this week.

 

With regards to the costs and complexities of leaving, it's a bit like divorce - costs lots and is traumatic, however it is still the right decision. Cost shouldn't not be used as a reason not to leave in the same way as it shouldn't be used as a reason not to stay.

Edited 25 October, 2011 by CB Saint
poor grammar (and spelling) Christ even my edits are spelt incorrectly

[Saintandy666]

The Germans and the French may have something to say about that. In fact Sarkozy did earlier this week.

 

With regards to the costs and complexities of leaving, it's a bit like divorce - costs lots and is traumatic, however it is still the right decision. Cost shouldn't not be used as a reason not to leave in the same way as it should be used as a reson not to stay.

 

That is very sensible actually, the cost point.

 

The only reason Sarkozy is like that though is because we've been so critical of Europe, yet our actions are wanting to be in it. If we just fully committed. Us, the German's and the French would be the leading 3 nations in the EU bloc.

[bridge too far]

In the NHS trust case, do they have to prioritise eu manufactured goods or is it the wholesaler that needs to be EU. i.e do they have to choose grundig (if they still exist) over samsung for instance

 

No, from what I remember, they don't have to prioritise EU goods because there are also other trading agreements - GATT and WTO for example. It's been more than 10 years since I was involved in procurement and things may well have changed. I would imagine that buying goods from an importer would be more expensive than buying directly from a manufacturer. And remember, it's not JUST price. Things like quality and added value such as training, service etc. come into the equation when offers are being evaluated.

 

However, being in the EU does bring competitive advantages without doubt.

[pap]

I agree but we always whinge I.m older enough to remember when the labour party were the anti eu party and the Tories pro Europe.we are not leaving the eu because no leader of the main parties will give up the national interest for fantasy logic.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

Again, mate - I'd pull you up on this. Listening to the debate last night, very few people had anything good to say about the EU, even those who were voting no on the motion.

 

Those that were FOR the EU couldn't make a convincing case. All soundbites and platitudes.

 

"We should be IN Europe"

"We should be at the table"

"We should be leading Europe"

 

It's all a lot of waffle with no substance behind it. No-one was able to present a decent case for Europe. Mostly, it was "we'll really be in the shyte if we leave". Really? Why?

[solentstars]

Again, mate - I'd pull you up on this. Listening to the debate last night, very few people had anything good to say about the EU, even those who were voting no on the motion.

 

Those that were FOR the EU couldn't make a convincing case. All soundbites and platitudes.

 

"We should be IN Europe"

"We should be at the table"

"We should be leading Europe"

 

It's all a lot of waffle with no substance behind it. No-one was able to present a decent case for Europe. Mostly, it was "we'll really be in the shyte if we leave". Really? Why?

 

Sorry but the anti eu argument has been going on for years and we have still not left.its just not going to happen.if people were really wanting out they would be rushing to ukip who are the only Honest party in all this and the Tory eu haters should defect to if they had the guts instead of playing to the gallery.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[pap]

Sorry but the anti eu argument has been going on for years and we have still not left.its just not going to happen.if people were really wanting out they would be rushing to ukip who are the only Honest party in all this and the Tory eu haters should defect to if they had the guts instead of playing to the gallery.

 

I'm not sure that necessarily follows. First, just shy of a million people voted for UKIP in the 2010 General Election, yet they have no representation in Parliament. So it's not that people aren't voting. They are voting, but the electoral system is contrived so that almost a million people don't have a single advocate in Parliament.

 

I hear loads of decent arguments for NOT being in the EU. We've only ever got more out than we put in once, and coincidentally, that was the year before the 1975 referendum. We have no control over the numbers of people that can live and work here. Our fishing industries no longer exist, and we are paying money to prop up economies that are extremely poorly managed. Worse than our own, if you can believe that.

 

I haven't heard a single argument in favour of the EU which doesn't rely on some worst case scenario in which the rest of Europe will stop trading with us because we've left their club.

[bridge too far]

.......

 

We have no control over the numbers of people that can live and work here.

 

 

I have to take issue with you on this element. In this document, published by the Home Office, on page 13 http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14332/1/14332.pdf it is quite clearly stated that with recently admitted member states we CAN have a say on who, from those states, can be allowed to work in our country.

 

In a nutshell we can apply national measures if the state of the workforce demands it. (The exception to this is for workers from Cyprus and Malta - understandable given their historic connections with the UK).

[View From The Top]

Even lefties like myself, and all bar one of the lefties I know, want our relationship with Europe re-written and want a referendum regarding the EU.

 

Most love the right to work and travel and understand the relationship regarding trade but I/we/they don't want political union bar the lightest touch needed in regarded to those elements.

[Minty]

Even lefties like myself, and all bar one of the lefties I know, want our relationship with Europe re-written and want a referendum regarding the EU.

 

Most love the right to work and travel and understand the relationship regarding trade but I/we/they don't want political union bar the lightest touch needed in regarded to those elements.

Add my name to that list.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

I agree with Nick Clegg this morning, we should be leading Europe, not leaving it!

 

He is the last person we should be listening to regarding the EU. If it was down to him we'd be in the Euro now.

 

His party also had a manifesto pledge for an in/out vote and his MP's walked out of the chamber in protest at being denied one during the Lisbon debate.How on earth anyone can quote this hypercritical clown to back up any arguement is beyond me.

 

That's the thing with the EU debate, the most passionate about the EU, idiots like Clegg and Ken Clarke have been proved to be wrong over the ERM & again over the Euro and yet we're meant to take advise from them?

[um pahars]

For me there are three issues:

 

1) Economic impact on UK PLC.

 

Can anyone answer why the CBI and big business are pro EU membership? Do they believe it is best for British businesses?

 

2) Economic impact on me.

 

Would I being paying less taxes? With reference to 1) above, how will the impact on UK PLC affect me?

 

3) Ideaological/emotive impact on me?

 

How committed to Europe am I? Do I feel represented? Do I feel any link?

 

I am happy to answer 3) in that I don't particularly feel anything for Europe, don't feel in touch with my MEP or with anyone making decisions that affect me. Don't feel any link to Europe, geographically close, but not much else links us.

 

The impact of 1) & 2) could overide that if EU membership is extremely beneficial to UK PLC and myself, but similarly if the benefits are minimal then I'd live without them.

[solentstars]

I'm not sure that necessarily follows. First, just shy of a million people voted for UKIP in the 2010 General Election, yet they have no representation in Parliament. So it's not that people aren't voting. They are voting, but the electoral system is contrived so that almost a million people don't have a single advocate in Parliament.

 

I hear loads of decent arguments for NOT being in the EU. We've only ever got more out than we put in once, and coincidentally, that was the year before the 1975 referendum. We have no control over the numbers of people that can live and work here. Our fishing industries no longer exist, and we are paying money to prop up economies that are extremely poorly managed. Worse than our own, if you can believe that.

 

I haven't heard a single argument in favour of the EU which doesn't rely on some worst case scenario in which the rest of Europe will stop trading with us because we've left their club.

i don,t think europe would stop us tradeing with them but we would have no say in any aspect of europeon single market which we would still have to follow to trade in eurozone. china india usa the big tradeing blocks would deal with the eu when it came to trade agreements rather than a small country outside one of the world important tradeing blocks so more loss of influence and i fear that we would lose out on investment when companys are looking for places to invest in. i take more notice of the cbi,big business who want us in the eu than people like bill cash and the nutty fringes of the tory party.i think its like leaveing the premier league to join the conference.i would advise those die hard tory party supporters who want to leave the eu to go out and vote for the ukip who are the only honest people about their intentions.

[hypochondriac]

I think it is extremely unfair to label those who want to look again at Europe as nutty. It does you a disservice because people are less inclined to listen to you.

[pap]

I have to take issue with you on this element. In this document, published by the Home Office, on page 13 http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/14332/1/14332.pdf it is quite clearly stated that with recently admitted member states we CAN have a say on who, from those states, can be allowed to work in our country.

 

In a nutshell we can apply national measures if the state of the workforce demands it. (The exception to this is for workers from Cyprus and Malta - understandable given their historic connections with the UK).

 

Interesting, but unless I'm reading it wrong, I'm not sure that's what is actually being said.

 

The transition period that has been envisaged for the current enlargement will not apply to Malta and Cyprus. For the other eight countries, it will work in the following way: during the first two years after accession, the current member states are free to admit workers from the future member states under national measures. Those that permit free movement of workers may impose or re-impose restrictions during this time. Following this two year period, the Commission

will report on the situation and member states will decide whether they want to either grant free movement of workers, or continue to apply national measures. During the next three years a current member state that has permitted free movement of workers can ask the Commission to suspend this law if it can show serious disturbances in its labour market, or a threat of such disturbances. However, at the end of that time (five years after accession) the transition period is

expected to come to an end in those countries which are still applying restrictions. In exceptional circumstances, again relating to showing an actual or threat of a serious disturbance in its labour market, member states will be able to ask the Commission to prolong it for a further two years. Seven years after accession, no member state will be allowed to restrict free movement of workers from the CEECs.

 

Now from what I read, if a country has been a member of the EU for seven years, no member state is allowed to restrict that nation's workers from moving wherever they like in the EU.

 

This isn't really solving the problem - it's just kicking it into the long grass. Instead of being indundated with immigrants on the date their country joins the EU, you're inundated seven years later.

 

Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007. At the moment, they need to get authorisation to work here, but they can move here freely in 2014. So really, we do have no control over our immigration policy. All we have is a bit of notice before our guests arrive.

[bridge too far]

I wonder why the French and Germans don't seem to have the same issues with sovereignty that we do? That's not a rhetorical question - it's just that they're as proud of their history and culture as we are and yet don't see membership of the EU as a threat to that.

[pedg]

Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007. At the moment, they need to get authorisation to work here, but they can move here freely in 2014. So really, we do have no control over our immigration policy. All we have is a bit of notice before our guests arrive.

 

Lucky really that Cameron and co appear to be trying to head that off by making us a very unattractive country to come to then!

[pap]

I wonder why the French and Germans don't seem to have the same issues with sovereignty that we do? That's not a rhetorical question - it's just that they're as proud of their history and culture as we are and yet don't see membership of the EU as a threat to that.

 

There's a difference between what Governments say and do with the opinions of those on the ground, though.

 

Eurosceptism exists all over Europe, perhaps not to the same degree all over, but it exists in every member state.

[pap]

Lucky really that Cameron and co appear to be trying to head that off by making us a very unattractive country to come to then!

 

All part of a masterplan?

 

Fox hunting to be replaced with peasant culling by 2015?

 

* The Lib Dems would never sign off on this. It would probably get moderated down to peasant mutilation thanks to brave barnstorming Clegg.

[hypochondriac]

There's a difference between what Governments say and do with the opinions of those on the ground, though.

 

Eurosceptism exists all over Europe, perhaps not to the same degree all over, but it exists in every member state.

 

All my Italian relatives have always been very euro sceptic. They say that all the euro has done is make things less affordable.