Should We Leave the EU?

crehld · 5 Feb 2016

tony_mac said:
It's quite interesting, it seems that online and telephone polling are producing vastly different results for these particular polls.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-catch-up-the-eu-referendum-isnt-really-on-a-knife-edge-a6776431.html

That's an interesting article which sheds light on the impact of methodology and sampling on polling results.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

anme said:
This is the elephant in the room. What does a 'no' vote mean?

Indeed. In my mind, this question has yet to be answered satisfactorily by those who say we should leave.

anme said:
Does it mean negotiating a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland has - having to obey most of the rules while having little say in their making, but remaining part of the single market and retaining freedom of movement while not contributing much to budgets, etc? (This used to be the position of the anti-Europeans)

I hope not as whatever influence our country has left will be completely eroded, and we'll still be paying significant sums in.

anme said:
Or does it mean opting out of Europe altogether, and becoming something more like Turkey or Ukraine?

Again I hope not, and again like Turkey and Ukraine we'd still be in a position where we are having to adhere to EU rules, but have no seat around the table.

anme said:
Why has the 'no' camp not put together a clear plan? (Obvious because they could never agree on one)

Because there is no plan? The no camp seem to be very passionate about things like sovereignty, protection of border, etc. etc. While I respect this passion it is far removed from the reality of this country's position in 2016, and I've yet to hear a rational and coherent argument that would convince me the benefits of leaving outweigh the benefits of remaining in. In all the heat of the passion put across from both sides of the debate, there's very little substance and fact.

RailUK Forums

Domh245 · 5 Feb 2016

This video might be of interest to some, explaining some of the different aspects of the EU. It doesn't go very deep (and I do hope that it's author will produce something about what Brexit [:P] would entail) but there is only so much that can be covered in under 6 minutes.

WestCoast · 6 Feb 2016

anme said:
This is the elephant in the room. What does a 'no' vote mean? Does it mean negotiating a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland has - having to obey most of the rules while having little say in their making, but remaining part of the single market and retaining freedom of movement while not contributing much to budgets, etc? (This used to be the position of the anti-Europeans)
Or does it mean opting out of Europe altogether, and becoming something more like Turkey or Ukraine?
Why has the 'no' camp not put together a clear plan? (Well, obviously because they could never agree on one)

This is what concerns me the most, there are so many unanswered questions about what our future role in Europe would be. Would we be an EEA member state or the next Switzerland, obeying lots of rules that the anti-EU camp are so against? Or as you say a path of isolation, how would that work with all the sorrounding countries having some form of relationship with the EU?

Tricky questions but until a credible and cohesive plan is provided I would never consider voting to leave.

yorksrob · 6 Feb 2016

In truth, there are always going to be unknowns about a future relationship outside the EU for the fact that such a relationship hasn't been negotiated yet and that would be partly down to what other EU countries feel. Unless they're feeling particularly spiteful, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect something along similar lines to the sort of relationship we have with other western countries.

anme · 6 Feb 2016

yorksrob said:
In truth, there are always going to be unknowns about a future relationship outside the EU for the fact that such a relationship hasn't been negotiated yet and that would be partly down to what other EU countries feel. Unless they're feeling particularly spiteful, I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect something along similar lines to the sort of relationship we have with other western countries.

But what does Cameron do after a "no" vote? Does he try to negotiate to remain part of the EEA, preserving free movement, work and trade? Or does he specifically rule out those things? I wonder if we would need another referendum.

Chapeltom · 6 Feb 2016

The people will vote to stay in when in reality, the best thing to do is leave. The In camp will scare people in voting to stay in, tell outright lies and we'll get the 'if you vote out, you're right wing and you're racist' crap. The EU has more to lose from us leaving than we have to leave. Given how we are a huge market for EU products, the other EU member nations would never stop trading with us or make it difficult.

My concerns with the EU.
-Democracy/sovereignty
-Cost, we are a net contributor. Auditors haven't signed off the EU's books in nearly 2 decades
-Unaccountability, how can anyone support a system where you cannot complain about it? Politicians don't necessarily have the interests of people at heart, only themselves and those in power.
-Migration policies. I don't think it's right that non EU citizens are made to jump through hoops to get jobs. It is ridiculous how hard it is for skilled non EU workers to get a work permit, yet European nationals just have a right to live in the UK.
-Africa and the EU. EU tariffs/common agricultural policy both help to stop the development of African nations. It's just plain wrong. It should be a free market, get rid of the tariffs.

Those who argue that the world's 6th largest economy cannot cope outside the EU is beyond help, we need to be able to make free trade deals on our own. We do not need a faceless technocrat in Brussels to do this for us.

radamfi · 6 Feb 2016

Chapeltom said:
-Migration policies. I don't think it's right that non EU citizens are made to jump through hoops to get jobs. It is ridiculous how hard it is for skilled non EU workers to get a work permit, yet European nationals just have a right to live in the UK.

Should UK citizens be made to jump hoops to live in the EU?

Senex · 6 Feb 2016

WestCoast said:
This is what concerns me the most, there are so many unanswered questions about what our future role in Europe would be. Would we be an EEA member state or the next Switzerland, obeying lots of rules that the anti-EU camp are so against? Or as you say a path of isolation, how would that work with all the sorrounding countries having some form of relationship with the EU?

Tricky questions but until a credible and cohesive plan is provided I would never consider voting to leave.

Not just our future role in Europe but our future world role. Would there be any case for us to remain a permanent member of the Security Council (even if we wanted to), what about the whole wretched "punching above our weight on the world stage" argument, and so on? All we hear so far from the Brexit side is that Europe will need to trade with us more than us with them, and so they will keep the doors wide open, and the world will be open for trade with us -- even though we don't seem to have been doing anything like as well on the world stage as some of the other EU states. We also, of course, hear all the old emotive arguments about our wonderful constitution, marvellous representative parliament, superb legal system so much better than anything in the rest of Europe, glorious City of London, and all tghe rest of it -- but no clear arguments as to exactly what an "independent" Great Britain outside the EU would be like, what its position in the world should be, etc.

I'm no fan of the EU as it is, and I don't think we've benefited from it anything like as much as we should have done, but I think a lot of that is down to the carping critical attitude we've taken over the years, always arguing that we are different and need special arrangements rather than joining in fully and trying to make things better and make them work. Perhaps that's what was to be expected in the country that won the war and lost the peace, utterly let down by its politicians on both sides.

Chapeltom · 6 Feb 2016

radamfi said:
Should UK citizens be made to jump hoops to live in the EU?

I don't believe there is a right to live and work anywhere, you should earn a job on merit. If you are skilled enough to do a job, you should get it.

I teach English in Taiwan, I appreciate that there has to be procedures in place before you can be granted a work permit and permission to stay in a country. A country should know who it is employing, whether its via criminal record checks, proof of qualifications, proof of funds.

Anyone working in the EU and those working in the UK from the EU would not/should not lose their employment if the UK left the EU. If a person is good enough to be employed, why should that change? I personally think it's bias and unfair to favour EU workers over non EU workers.

anme · 6 Feb 2016

Senex said:
Perhaps that's what was to be expected in the country that won the war and lost the peace, utterly let down by its politicians on both sides.

My impression is that many British people remain obsessed by the second world war, and unable to cope with anything that has happened since 1945. That's a fault with British culture. It's too easy to blame just the politicians. British people must also look at themselves.

radamfi · 6 Feb 2016

Chapeltom said:
I don't believe there is a right to live and work anywhere, you should earn a job on merit. If you are skilled enough to do a job, you should get it.

Yours is the best argument I've seen against EU freedom of movement, in that it discriminates against people outside the EU. Ideally there would be no such thing as countries, but the next best thing is the EU. However, what you suggest effectively imprisons unskilled British people in the UK.

anme · 6 Feb 2016

Chapeltom said:
I don't believe there is a right to live and work anywhere, you should earn a job on merit. If you are skilled enough to do a job, you should get it.

Um, I'm not sure what you understand by having a "right to live and work anywhere in the EU", but it does not mean that it's compulsory for someone to give you a job! You have to earn most jobs, in any country, on merit by convincing the employer that they should hire you! No-one has a right to a job in the UK (royalty and nobility excepted).

Chapeltom said:
I personally think it's bias and unfair to favour EU workers over non EU workers.

I don't understand your logic. If it's unfair to be biased against workers from other countries, surely we should remove that bias for everyone, and not re-introduce it for EU workers?

Oswyntail · 6 Feb 2016

I am always puzzled, when a debate such as this comes up that:-

So many people can criticise just about every source of information as biased, corrupt etc etc. yet
So many people, often the same as above, can make definitive statements on the subject, and they become very heated if those statements are challenged.

I suspect that, as in just about everything, the issue will be dealt with on gut feeling, and will turn out generally for the best whatever happens.
And that whatever furious debate there is is so much wasted hot air:cry:

Oswyntail · 6 Feb 2016

anme said:
My impression is that many British people remain obsessed by the second world war, and unable to cope with anything that has happened since 1945. That's a fault with British culture. It's too easy to blame just the politicians. British people must also look at themselves.

I wonder what would have happened if we had got our priorities straight, and concentrated on rebuilding the physical infrastructure - transport and industry - after 1945, and only when that was established spend vastly unaffordable sums of money on a welfare state

yorksrob · 6 Feb 2016

anme said:
But what does Cameron do after a "no" vote? Does he try to negotiate to remain part of the EEA, preserving free movement, work and trade? Or does he specifically rule out those things? I wonder if we would need another referendum.

He could argue that we voted to join an economic community in 1972, and that gives him a mandate to negotiate a new trade settlement. He could equally argue that too much time has past and a new mandate is needed. Either have merit as far as I can see.

yorksrob · 6 Feb 2016

radamfi said:
Yours is the best argument I've seen against EU freedom of movement, in that it discriminates against people outside the EU. Ideally there would be no such thing as countries, but the next best thing is the EU. However, what you sugg
suggest effectively imprisons unskilled British people in the UK.

I disagree that in an ideal world there would be no countries. I believe that for democracy to function, there needs to be a demos of people with broadly similar cultural values with a stake in that country. Given the variation in human cultures, I believe that neither a single global state, nor an anarchic free for all would be desirable or workable.

HowardGWR · 6 Feb 2016

My impression is that, if the fear of foreigners, with, in the mind of most British people, bringing in strange and unpleasant cultures, chiefly Islamic based, was removed, then the no vote (leave the EU) would collapse.

The current refugee crisis, including bogus asylum seekers from the Balkans and North Africa, has heightened this fear so much, that I suspect Cameron is now pasted into a corner. If those that have entered the northern states eventually get citizenship (3 years has been quoted) then voters think that a substantial proportion will then form a further diaspora to the UK, that makes the Polish immigration look like a bagatelle, although don't forget, it was the latter (remember Mrs Duffy?) that started this off and turned many Labour voters into anti EU voters.

I am afraid the responsibility for this British working class fear was Blair's government not insisting on sufficient initial limits from the eastern new EU entrants such as Poland and Romania, as many other countries did so negotiate.

Senex · 6 Feb 2016

Oswyntail said:
I wonder what would have happened if we had got our priorities straight, and concentrated on rebuilding the physical infrastructure - transport and industry - after 1945, and only when that was established spend vastly unaffordable sums of money on a welfare state

Absolutely. And I wonder how much better things might have been in this country if we'd had a banking sector that had been a much better long-term supporter of small- and middle-sized businesses -- the sort of companies that have been so important in the German recovery and success after 1945.

Senex · 6 Feb 2016

anme said:
My impression is that many British people remain obsessed by the second world war, and unable to cope with anything that has happened since 1945. That's a fault with British culture. It's too easy to blame just the politicians. British people must also look at themselves.

I agree, but I think the sort of "leadership" we've endured from our politicians is a major contributor to the sort of attitudes and culture we have developed.

yorksrob · 6 Feb 2016

Senex said:
Absolutely. And I wonder how much better things might have been in this country if we'd had a banking sector that had been a much better long-term supporter of small- and middle-sized businesses -- the sort of companies that have been so important in thIe German recovery and success after 1945.

Indeed. And a City more interested in long term investment than making a fast buck.

Robertj21a · 6 Feb 2016

So, just to help me in my thoughts.....

If we vote to stay in the EU what happens about the comments like:-

1) Doesn't that mean 'ever closer union' ?

2) Will it lead to a federal Europe ?

3) Are we happy to continue supporting those more southerly countries that seem to struggle with a work ethic ?

4) Is the Common Agricultural Policy sacrosanct ?

fowler9 · 6 Feb 2016

HowardGWR said:
My impression is that, if the fear of foreigners, with, in the mind of most British people, bringing in strange and unpleasant cultures, chiefly Islamic based, was removed, then the no vote (leave the EU) would collapse.

The current refugee crisis, including bogus asylum seekers from the Balkans and North Africa, has heightened this fear so much, that I suspect Cameron is now pasted into a corner. If those that have entered the northern states eventually get citizenship (3 years has been quoted) then voters think that a substantial proportion will then form a further diaspora to the UK, that makes the Polish immigration look like a bagatelle, although don't forget, it was the latter (remember Mrs Duffy?) that started this off and turned many Labour voters into anti EU voters.

I am afraid the responsibility for this British working class fear was Blair's government not insisting on sufficient initial limits from the eastern new EU entrants such as Poland and Romania, as many other countries did so negotiate.

Countries such as Poland are complicated. We used them as pilots (And they were amongst the best pilots) and soldiers in WW2 and then sold them down the river in the Yalta conference. I think we owe Poland something.

Robertj21a · 6 Feb 2016

fowler9 said:
Countries such as Poland are complicated. We used them as pilots (And they were amongst the best pilots) and soldiers in WW2 and then sold them down the river in the Yalta conference. I think we owe Poland something.

Quite agree. Hard workers, polite, and clear English speakers always welcome here.

HowardGWR · 6 Feb 2016

Robertj21a said:
Quite agree. Hard workers, polite, and clear English speakers always welcome here.

Yes, both you and Fowler9 stress the cultural and emotional ties (with which I empathise and agree). I think the 'Polish issue' would have been overcome, on its own. In other words, when the referendum came, voters would have supported staying in. However, I think it is the Syrian influx to the EU mainland, coupled with the free-loader economic migrant young men, that have soured the issue once again, and tipped voters into fear mode.

I suspect that if Cameron delays the referendum until next year, the pendulum may swing again, but with supposedly 300,000 people currently on the march towards the west, from the Aleppo area, an hysteria of fear will, even more, take over the minds of voters.

Robertj21a · 6 Feb 2016

In my experience you can group the Poles in with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia etc) as they all speak good English and seem to want to integrate and co-operate with the Brits, and their way of life.

Personally, I would also group together (though they would hate it !) the Czechs, Slovaks, Roumanians and Bulgarians - seemingly not quite so good at the English language, nor quite the same work ethic and probably less interested in integration.

For me, that also raises the issue of migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. It's only my personal view but I seriously doubt that sufficient of them will contribute much to the good of Britain as a whole. They start from a totally different perspective of what makes up our British culture, customs, and general way of life. It's not a racist view (I would expect the same problems if I was to try living in any of their countries) but it is, in my view, a fair and honest assessment.

A lot may well depend on what happens with migration - and with Turkey - in the coming weeks but if the EU wants to meddle with lots of other countries, and then wants to demand compliance for migration quotas, settlements etc from all member states, then I feel it's time I voted for Brexit.

HowardGWR · 6 Feb 2016

Robertj21a said:
A lot may well depend on what happens with migration - and with Turkey - in the coming weeks but if the EU wants to meddle with lots of other countries, and then wants to demand compliance for migration quotas, settlements etc from all member states, then I feel it's time I voted for Brexit.

I just quote your last para because, if you are typical, (and I think you are) you sum up what is the chief issue. All the talk about economics, I feel, passes most people by. We had over 20 years of good economic growth in all the member states, with increasing cultural contact, of which I am an example. I emigrated to Holland in 1977 and made good there. My daughter is married to a Dutchman and we all benefited from a very civilised country and didn't need a work permit. We just literally turned up and yes, my family was entitled to benefits (better than GB to be honest). I now draw part Dutch and part British state pension (and guess which is more generous).

Excuse the personal anecdote but I imagine you can guess which way I shall vote. I feel we have more problems with our 'home grown' ethnic population, and those allowed in from places other than the EU, such as Nigeria and Somalia,than any coming from Syria.

Robertj21a · 6 Feb 2016

HowardGWR said:
I just quote your last para because, if you are typical, (and I think you are) you sum up what is the chief issue. All the talk about economics, I feel, passes most people by. We had over 20 years of good economic growth in all the member states, with increasing cultural contact, of which I am an example. I emigrated to Holland in 1977 and made good there. My daughter is married to a Dutchman and we all benefited from a very civilised country and didn't need a work permit. We just literally turned up and yes, my family was entitled to benefits (better than GB to be honest). I now draw part Dutch and part British state pension (and guess which is more generous).

Excuse the personal anecdote but I imagine you can guess which way I shall vote. I feel we have more problems with our 'home grown' ethnic population, and those allowed in from places other than the EU, such as Nigeria and Somalia,than any coming from Syria.

I don't think the other significant issues, notably the economics, just 'pass most people by', I think I/we try to also take that fully into account. However, there comes a time when you find yourself at a 'Red Line' which gives you considerable cause for concern.

I totally agree with you regarding issues that people may have with those from, say, Somalia (and that Syrians are likely to be far less of an issue) but, all the same, I get rather anxious about what will happen to the UK if we were to accept significant numbers of migrants who may well be quite alien to our culture, customs and general way of life. In the UK I've lived in very 'white' shire counties and in cities with very high Asian/Indian populations and, at no time, did I find any significant difficulties. I just have to be honest with myself in saying that I feel it could be very different if others were to be admitted in large numbers.

Busaholic · 6 Feb 2016

fowler9 said:
Countries such as Poland are complicated. We used them as pilots (And they were amongst the best pilots) and soldiers in WW2 and then sold them down the river in the Yalta conference. I think we owe Poland something.

London Underground prior to its being subsumed into the Greater London Council in 1970 had many Polish-born staff on the administration side as, apparently, someone at a very high level in LU had been in the RAF during the war and was very impressed with the attributes (loyalty and hard work, principally) he had found among the Poles and so actively sort to recruit from this cadre. Some of the jobs were, shall we say, of the rather unnecessary kind imo, but it gave work and free travel in London, so who's complaining?

NY Yankee · 7 Feb 2016

Like I said before, there are positive and negative aspects about the European Union. The free flow of goods and services between the UK and western European nations is beneficial to all of those nations. However, what I don't like about the European Union is that it has become a quasi-government entity. The EU makes decisions that are in the best interests of the entire union, not just a particular country. The migrant crisis is one of many examples. Most of the migrants want a better life for themselves. Unfortunately, some of them want to turn Europe into Iran. In addition, the EU also consists of Eastern European nations with weaker economies. The stronger EU nations often subsidise the weaker nations (example: what happened in Greece a few years ago).

The UK is a world superpower, yet it has no control over its immigration policies. Everyone should be free to enter the UK, provided they become productive people who conform to the culture of the country. It's unfair to be forced to blindly accept migrants.

DynamicSpirit · 7 Feb 2016

NY Yankee said:
However, what I don't like about the European Union is that it has become a quasi-government entity. The EU makes decisions that are in the best interests of the entire union, not just a particular country.

Shouldn't making decisions in the best interest of the whole union be an advantage? Just as - for example, one would hope that the British Government would be making decisions in the best interests of the UK as a whole and not - say - just the best interests of London. Similarly you'd hope that the American Government would be making decisions in the best interest of the US as a whole, and not - for example - just Washington. Why should that be any different for the EU?

Should We Leave the EU?

Do you believe the UK should stay in or leave the EU?

Stay in the EU

Leave the EU

I don't know

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member