EU discussion

[french frank]

James, one question imposes itself: what are the reasons why you feel so strongly? I've heard them stated, but talking about 'sovereignty' and 'governing ourselves' don't seem to be real issues in people's everyday lives. And the most frequently mentioned 'scandals' usually seem to have been invented.

[aeolium]

I thought the quality of debate improved when the thread was temporarily closed, as it had largely degenerated into a slanging match between polarised camps, with mockery and insult substituting for argument. It's a shame, as there is certainly a debate to be had but it cannot take place unless there is a willingness to listen to the arguments of those you disagree with, which there clearly isn't here.

[James Wonnacott]

You sign off "I have no doubt, the only way is out" - a simple statement on what is nevertheless a far from simple matter.

Yes, it is a simple statement and is the conclusion I have come to after due consideration of what, as you say, is a far from simple matter.

Whilst I presume that you refer here specifically to UK and its EU membership, do you at the same time advocate the continued existence (and perhaps expansion) of a UK-less EU, to the extent that you would not say for any other EU nation that "the only way is out"?

I think that is a matter for those other nations to decide (democratically) of course.

Do you think that a plain and simple "in or out" referendum on UK's continued membership of EU that were to result in its withdrawal from EU would act as another destabilising factor for EU?

Probably but I think the whole thing is unstable in its present form and will collapse anyway. It is better for us to make an orderly withdrawal before that happens.

What do you suppose the economic consequences for UK would be if it left EU?

In the short term it would be a little bumpy, in the medium & long term we would be better off.

What do you suppose the economic consequences of UK quitting EU would be for the economies of the remainder of EU and how might you suppose that this would affect UK?

As stated above, as it stands, I think the whole thing is unstable.

What if such a referendum had yet to be held by the time UK fragments into four separate nations (which may happen)? - would you either advocate or anticipate that each of the four would then have to decide whether or not to hold its own separate referendum on whether or not to remain within EU?

I do not think that the UK will fragment, however, if that wre the case then, of course, it is a matter for the electorate of each nation to decide.

These are only some factors to be considered when the topic of UK's continued membership of EU is raised. Trading insults and assuming obdurate, simplistic and dogmatic stances do no one - or the topic itself - any favours. We know that UKIP has its principal agenda without which its continued existence would be severely compromised, so if such a referendum were to go against the thrust of its main policy, the party would be seriously damaged as a consequence. It is also very much a minority party with few representatives in government and few voting supporters; it is only right in the interests of balance and pragmatism to recognise these facts, however unpleasant that may be for those who do support UKIP.

As I stated in a previous post, UKIP was formed simply because none of the established parties offered the option of withdrawal.

It might be a good idea to hold such a referendum if only for the purpose of disposing of some of the arguments that get tossed around this subject, were it not for the fat that, whichever way it goes, some people would still continue to argue against whatever the post-referendum status quo might be...

Agreed, but as I stated previously, I would accept the decision of the majority.

[ahinton]

I thought the quality of debate improved when the thread was temporarily closed, as it had largely degenerated into a slanging match between polarised camps, with mockery and insult substituting for argument. It's a shame, as there is certainly a debate to be had but it cannot take place unless there is a willingness to listen to the arguments of those you disagree with, which there clearly isn't here.

Well, I for one do not belong to a "polarised camp" on these issues and it is also difficult to listen to "arguments" unless actual arguments are presented in place of mere bald statement along the lines of "Britain should leave EU, the Eurozone and the UK-less EU can go fend for itself and we'll all live in splendid isolation", as though some kind of universal veracity about which no more need be said. I agree with FF that questions of "sovereignty" and "governing ourselves" are of limited value and relevance to most UK citizens these days, given not only the outcomes of Britain's colonial past and its multi-cultural present (each of which is and would be unaffected by whether or not UK continued to be an EU member state) but also the questionable standard of government in both Britain and elsewhere within EU.

[James Wonnacott]

James, one question imposes itself: what are the reasons why you feel so strongly? I've heard them stated, but talking about 'sovereignty' and 'governing ourselves' don't seem to be real issues in people's everyday lives. And the most frequently mentioned 'scandals' usually seem to have been invented.

Some of this is answered in my reply to AHinton. Sovereignty is important to me and I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it is the case. I do not believe the eu is fascist as others have claimed but It is, in my view, undemocratic. I am not a Little Englander, or xenophobe (my wife is Russian). I simply maintain that Britain would be better off outside the eu, that the British people are the people who should decide our future, and that we have not been given the opportunity to do so.

[ahinton]

You write that, for you, other EU member state decisions (if any) about continued EU mambership are for each members state to decide for itself and, in so doing, you are clarifying that your stance on UK's EU membership does not signify that you actively seek to advocate EU dissolution; thanks for that. You nevertheless believe that "the whole thing is unstable in its present form and will collapse anyway" (which indeed it might) and that it is "better for us to make an orderly withdrawal before that happens"; why, in your view, might it be better for UK to withdraw as soon as possible rather than wait for that collapse? - specifically, how do you see the difference in ewffect for UK between active withdrawal now and passive severace as a consequence of collapse? I'm not suggesting that you're necessarily wrong; I'm just curious as to how you might see this aspect of the matter.

You state that if UK withdraws from EU, "in the short term it would be a little bumpy, in the medium & long term we would be better off", but on what specific grounds have you formed that conclusion?

You then clarify that you "do not think that the UK will fragment, however, if that were the case then, of course, it is a matter for the electorate of each nation to decide"; UK may indeed not fragment and, even if it does, it is, I submit, most unlikely that it will split into its four constituent parts at once, but I agree that, once it has done so (if indeed it does), it will be "a matter for the electorate of each nation to decide".

You did indeed state in a previous post that "UKIP was formed simply because none of the established parties offered the option of withdrawal", which is why I refered to it as a "one-trick pony" which, while being perhaps something of an exaggeration, it cannot be gainsaid that a referendum result that keeps UK in EU would remove the foundation from the UKIP building and leave it even more isolated politically than UK would likely become were it to withdraw from EU membership.

The much vaunted (by some) call for a mere free trading arrangement between the nations of Europe including an EU without UK is all very well, but it takes no account of practical considerations such as the currency factor. Europe consists of many more nations than the 27 EU member states in any case but, even within EU, there are still 11 different currencies in operation and all trading possibilities and successes/failures are heavily (though not exclusively) dependent upon the vagaries of the currency markets; it's far harder now, for example, with the euro being worth around 80p, for UK to export to Eurozone states than was the case when it was worth almost £1.

[french frank]

Some of this is answered in my reply to AHinton.

What I read is a clear statement of your beliefs. But there isn't anything - yet - to back them up.

You say that the UK would be 'better off' and I wonder if there is an underlying political 'position'. I would call myself 'left-inclined' rather than a left-winger. Embodied within that is the belief that those who are better off should help those who are worse/worst off. That isn't something that relates closely to where I live or how I identify myself in a national/ethnic/cultural way. Stemming from that is support for a fair taxation system with relatively high tax levels so that the better off finance the essential services for the less well-off. I do not support a system where we keep as much as possible in our own pockets and spend it the way we want to because 'that is our right'. So I don't resent 'our money' going to help poorer countries. Any estimate of what our real deficit is with the EU, by the time the bulk of the finance has been redistributed and we've had our cut?

I also think that the human race is better when there is cooperation rather than division. Politically, yes, there are power blocs and we can't do a lot about that. But a strong Europe, I believe, can mitigate the existence of more aggressive powers. I don't like the UK sloping off to prop up US adventures. I like the strength of the union of the many - quite different from the US, China or the old USSR.

On 'sovereignty': well, we retain our sovereignty but I am of the political persuasion that believes also that 'sovereignty' in any given respect should be held at the most appropriate level and in many of the important matters, that appropriate leve is higher than the UK government. I support the EU particularly in its 'tiresome' directives on the environment.

Hmmm. This could go on ... I have things to do, but this outlines what underpins some of my beliefs.

[ahinton]

Sovereignty is important to me and I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it is the case.

It doesn't offend me at all and, in any case, I merely suggested, as did FF before me, that it's not a prime consideration for many UK citizens.

I do not believe the eu is fascist as others have claimed but It is, in my view, undemocratic.

I agree with you on the first of these but I question on what grounds you consider EU to be any less democratic than UK itself or than any other of its individual member states.

I am not a Little Englander, or xenophobe (my wife is Russian)

And you live in Cornwall, too! (when and how are they going to get EU funding for a Parliament building in Truro, by the way?)...

I simply maintain that Britain would be better off outside the eu, that the British people are the people who should decide our future, and that we have not been given the opportunity to do so.

Merely maintaining it is OK for you but you still don't say how and in what ways you think that UK would be better off outside EU.

Who are "the British people" anyway? If by that you mean all those who have "British citizen" or "British subject" on their passports and accordingly have the right of abode within UK, you must mean millions of people who do not live in UK (of whom some have never lived there) as well as all those British citizens/subjects who do; the problem here is that, were even a mere 10% of those living outside UK to decide to come to live there, the country would struggle far more than it is doing now.

I do not subscribe to your view that British citizens/subjects "have not been given the opportunity to" decide their future, since Britain does still have a democratically elected government and is therefore by no means wholly and ultimately governed by EU but, in any case, deciding one's future, be it as an individual or as a nation, is ever-increasingly difficult everywhere today, not just in UK.

[scottycelt]

Some of this is answered in my reply to AHinton. Sovereignty is important to me and I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it is the case. I do not believe the eu is fascist as others have claimed but It is, in my view, undemocratic. I am not a Little Englander, or xenophobe (my wife is Russian). I simply maintain that Britain would be better off outside the eu, that the British people are the people who should decide our future, and that we have not been given the opportunity to do so.

Sovereignty is important to we 'Europhiles' as well. I want my country to be strong and have a powerful voice in world affairs and believe passionately this can only be achieved by aligning ourselves with one of the major power blocs. It is all very well yearning to be a wee Switzerland, but it should be noted even that country has had to negotiate trading terms with the EU to survive. Being outside does not mean Europe, our main trading partner, will magically disappear!

I've nothing against a referendum as it would bring things to a head. Of course, if the people decided to leave we would then have to decide where we were going to go next, because, believe me, we will have to go somewhere and find new friends and trading partners who will dictate terms which will suit them and not us, and that's the simple reality.

We already have a good example of 'pooling sovereignty' within Nato. We British, in our usual blundering way, have no aircraft carriers at present so we shall have to borrow from the French if we urgently need one in the next few years, God forbid.

That's what the EU is all about ... the nations of Europe pooling their sovereignty and resources to create a strong political and economic entity and being able to stand up to the likes of the US and China without having conditions imposed on us, as would almost certainly be the case otherwise.

It's not a particularly new idea , of course, and was championed by none other than Sir Winston Churchill!

[Beef Oven]

You diod indeed state in a previous post that "UKIP was formed simply because none of the established parties offered the option of withdrawal", which is why I refered to it as a one-trick pony which, while being perhaps something of an exaggeration, it cannot be gainsaid that a referendum result that keeps UK in EU would remove the foundation from the UKIP building and leave it even more isolated politically than UK would likely become were it to withdraw from EU membership.

UKIP has moved on quite a bit since its inception, both in terms of its policies and its support (currently in third place in the most recent opinion polls).

It used to be focused on who governs Britain - wanting it to be parliament through the members that we directly elect, rather than by 'managers' or 'officials' who have not been voted for by anyone, issuing directives that we must implement (defining 75% of our laws).

UKIP has broadened its view and is focusing on how Britain should be governed.

It's not a 'one trick pony' anymore.

[Beef Oven]

That's what the EU is all about ... the nations of Europe pooling their sovereignty and resources to create a strong political and economic entity and being able to stand up to the likes of the US and China without having conditions imposed on us, as would almost certainly be the case otherwise.

From an earlier post......China, being the current economic/political/world threat, is what we need Europe for now. A bulwark against this yellow monster.

We can't stand against them alone, but collectively we can take them on and.................go to them with our begging bowl and ask to borrow money so we can continue with our EU plan?

No, wait a moment, that can't be right! I guess I haven't quite got the hang of this yet

And to cap it all, when we went a-begging to China for money, they took a sniff at our EU economics, realised it stunk, and politely declined!!!

[James Wonnacott]

What I read is a clear statement of your beliefs. But there isn't anything - yet - to back them up.

You say that the UK would be 'better off' and I wonder if there is an underlying political 'position'. I would call myself 'left-inclined' rather than a left-winger. Embodied within that is the belief that those who are better off should help those who are worse/worst off. That isn't something that relates closely to where I live or how I identify myself in a national/ethnic/cultural way. Stemming from that is support for a fair taxation system with relatively high tax levels so that the better off finance the essential services for the less well-off. I do not support a system where we keep as much as possible in our own pockets and spend it the way we want to because 'that is our right'. So I don't resent 'our money' going to help poorer countries. Any estimate of what our real deficit is with the EU, by the time the bulk of the finance has been redistributed and we've had our cut?

I also think that the human race is better when there is cooperation rather than division. Politically, yes, there are power blocs and we can't do a lot about that. But a strong Europe, I believe, can mitigate the existence of more aggressive powers. I don't like the UK sloping off to prop up US adventures. I like the strength of the union of the many - quite different from the US, China or the old USSR.

On 'sovereignty': well, we retain our sovereignty but I am of the political persuasion that believes also that 'sovereignty' in any given respect should be held at the most appropriate level and in many of the important matters, that appropriate leve is higher than the UK government. I support the EU particularly in its 'tiresome' directives on the environment.

Hmmm. This could go on ... I have things to do, but this outlines what underpins some of my beliefs.

We obviously come from entirely different political standpoints and you like the eu for the very same reasons that I dislike it.
It is interesting that you say the eu is "quite different from" the old USSR as my Russian wife says that is exactly what it is like!

I will come back to this later today- but I really must do some work now.

[ahinton]

UKIP has moved on quite a bit since its inception, both in terms of its policies and its support (currently in third place in the most recent opinion polls).

Yes, I agree that it has done that, but opinion polls have never been as important as General Election results and, until such time as UKIP can form an overall majority government, it's still pretty much on the outside.

It used to be focused on who governs Britain - wanting it to be parliament through the members that we directly elect, rather than by 'managers' or 'officials' who have not been voted for by anyone, issuing directives that we must implement (defining 75% of our laws).

That's as may be, but all parties in government in UK have given us a framework within which the balance of what's decided in Whitehall by unelected people and what's decided in Westminster by elected ones arguably leaves rather too much to be desired, on the basis of recognition of which fact I remain to be convinced that, for example, the European Parliament is noticeably less "democratic" than the British one.

UKIP has broadened its view and is focusing on how Britain should be governed.

It's not a 'one trick pony' anymore.

Again, I do accept this and have already stated that my use of the term "one-trick pony" might be something of an exaggeration these days, but UKIP nevertheless remains alone among UK political parties in wanting UK out of EU; if it were in government, would it simply withdraw UK from EU or would it put ito the the electorate in the form of a referendum? Has it given sufficient consideration to the effect of UK possibly being sued for breach of contract were it unilaterally to sever its ties therewith?

[amateur51]

From an earlier post......China, being the current economic/political/world threat, is what we need Europe for now. A bulwark against this yellow monster.

I beg your pardon?

[Lateralthinking1]

It is an optimistic assumption that elected politicians would choose to retain the powers they managed to seize back from the EU. There is considerable evidence that even now their basic instinct is to give as many democratic powers away as possible.

- The Localism Bill. Huge powers handed to Council officials who will find it easy to ignore the representations of local councillors. Once it is established, don't bother asking your MP to take matters up with Ministers. Ministers won't want to know.

- Sub-contracts everywhere. Try going on "the accountability journey" - "Oh no it isn't the Minister, try Network Rail, oh no it isn't Network Rail, it is Transport for London, oh no sorry it isn't TfL, it is the Mayor, oh no did someone say it was Boris, no, you need to contact Southern Railways". In terms of nearly everything anyone tries to do, that is a pretty typical example.

It is everywhere. A4E as they were; Capita; you name it. UKIP want more of that; so do the Lab, Con, and Lib Dem parties. Green and Respect would probably do the same.

More power for Britain doesn't mean more Power to the People. That disappeared long before John Lennon.

And the Parliament you see on the HP sauce bottle is a myth. Irrespective of EU membership, it is becoming more so by the day.