Should We Leave the EU?

[DynamicSpirit]

Should we leave the EU?

Yes, you know this discussion is going to start sometime soon on railforums, so I thought I may as well get in and be the person who starts it

To put an unusual twist on it...

I personally am completely undecided which way I'd vote in the upcoming referendum, and I'm so far unimpressed by the arguments on either side.

I want to see a World in which countries, as far as practical, cooperate for the good of humanity - for all the people in the world. That seems to me to give a very good argument for having an organization like the EU. The fact that so much business is multinational, and so many problems (such as pollution and crime) ignore national boundaries and therefore cannot be solved by individual Governments working in isolation gives - to my mind - strong argument in favour of national Governments allowing some decisions to be made at an international level - which again seems to imply that an organization like the EU would be a good thing.

On the other hand, what I see in the EU looks more like almost every country squabbling and trying to look after its own interests, without much thought for those outside its own borders (the response to the current migrant crisis is an obvious example). If that's what the EU has become, is it really a force for good any more? And the recent experience of Greece suggests to me that it is important for national Governments to be able to control their own economies - their levels of economic growth, and of public spending etc. - rather more than is permitted by the free market and the Euro.

What do the pro- and anti- campaigns say? Well both seem to be adopting a very nationalistic tone. On the pro-EU side I see lots of scaremongering about jobs that supposedly depend on EU membership - but without any clarity on precisely why those jobs depend on EU membership - which makes me suspect that in fact, leaving the EU would make very little difference to most people's jobs. And there are also warnings that we'll (supposedly) be financially worse off outside the EU, which are also not backed up - as far as I can see - by any hard evidence that would make those warnings convincing.

On the anti-EU side, lots of scaremongering about immigration and (supposed) EU bureaucracy, and a rather emotional theme of taking back control of our country, which I suspect would not stand up to rational analysis (Do the anti-EU camp really believe having regulations made by English[1] people instead of foreigners is going to magically make everything better?).

I find the nationalist tone on both sides rather concerning because, while I recognize that the primary concern of the British Government must be the welfare of people in Britain, I also want to make my decision in the referendum from the point of view of whether us being in or out of the EU is better for humanity as a whole.

The arguments on both sides seem to me to be completely lacking in hard information about what the EU actually does, and how it works etc. That leaves me feeling insufficiently informed to make any decision (and based on what's been said so far, I can't see that changing between now and whenever the referendum takes place )

Based on that, I invite anyone to try to persuade me on the merits for either staying in the EU or leaving it

[1] I deliberately used 'English' not 'British' because that seems to me to better reflect the tone of the anti-EU message.

 

[radamfi]

The number one priority is to ensure that we retain our rights to live, work and retire anywhere in the EU/EEA. If that right is lost I will emigrate as soon as possible and acquire another nationality in order to retain that right.

 

[gordonthemoron]

quite Radamfi, further I'm not going to vote for anything which is going to damage my pension, such as leaving the EU, as we have no idea what would happen after

 

[radamfi]

It is possible to retain freedom of movement even if we leave the EU. For example, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland nationals can live anywhere in the EU. But it might also be possible to stay in the EU but with the UK negotiating an opt-out to freedom of movement. In that case, the Norway situation would be better.

Another factor would be relations with the Republic of Ireland. Would there still be a customs union between the UK and the Republic of Ireland in the event of the UK leaving the EU? Would freedom of movement between the UK and Ireland be lost? Could it even lead to a resumption of Northern Ireland terrorism?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I vote to stay in. There are bad sides, but overall it is a useful trading bloc which has ensured political stability within its membership for many years. I think things would be much more difficult without it.

It might have been better if it was more of an ASEAN like trading bloc, and it might have been better if we had taken a Swiss approach to membership, but those ships have sailed. If the choice is in or out, as it seems it is, better in.

 

[Domh245]

I personally am of the opinion that staying in the EU won't be cataclysmic, but neither would leaving it, although I am more likely to vote to stay in the EU. A lot is riding on whether or not this draft deal (which I haven't read through yet, but it is now out) gets accepted by the other EU leaders, it could convince quite a few people to stay in.

 

[crehld]

Personally I vote to stay in. There are bad sides, but overall it is a useful trading bloc which has ensured political stability within its membership for many years. I think things would be much more difficult without it.

I take this view too and will be voting accordingly. It's not perfect, but we're better of in than out. And besides our own political system is far from perfect, and many of the EU's failings people point to (lack of direct electoral accountability of the executive, run by unaccountable centralized bureaucrats, will of national parliaments seemingly ignored, poor citizen engagement) can easily be applied to the functioning of our own political system.

It might have been better if it was more of an ASEAN like trading bloc, and it might have been better if we had taken a Swiss approach to membership, but those ships have sailed. If the choice is in or out, as it seems it is, better in.

The problem is it's very difficult to engage in economic integration without some form of political integration. Economic policy is political and economics is affected by a wide range of political policy decisions which might not be immediately obvious. The Swiss (or even Norwegian) approach is certainly not the golden bullet solution to the problem a lot of Eurosceptics make it out to be, particularly given in some key policy areas which have been at the centre of the UK-EU debate (e.g. immigration), Switzerland is far more integrated into EU decision making than the UK is. Indeed, we find ourselves in the slightly paradoxical situation where to ensure you have a firm opt out of an EU policy the best course of action is to actually join the EU so you are in a position to get that opt out written into the treaties!

 

[Ash Bridge]

If the UK was to leave the EU, does anyone think it could start something of a chain reaction with other nations choosing to follow suit? for the record my choice is to remain in.

 

[krus_aragon]

May I recommend a program broadcast on Radio 4 last month? It's called How to make a Brexit, and discusses the practicalities of leaving the EU in the event of a no vote. It's still available on the Iplayer at the moment, and there is also a transcript transcript is available elsewhere.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One thing that I was always pleased about was not being part of the Eurozone.

 

[ComUtoR]

further I'm not going to vote for anything which is going to damage my pension, such as leaving the EU, as we have no idea what would happen after

How does leaving the EU affect pensions ?


Cheers in advance.

 

[crehld]

A lot is riding on whether or not this draft deal (which I haven't read through yet, but it is now out) gets accepted by the other EU leaders, it could convince quite a few people to stay in.

This is of course is a key point. It is a draft deal and only a proposal. Despite the claims of some, EU politics is built on compromise and consensus so I will be amazed if the eventual deal looks exactly as the draft published today. Expect a bit more give and take.

But the text of the draft deal raises another issue. The collection of documents, declaration, resolutions and conclusions which form the draft deal are complex legal documents which have a foundation in international law. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to studying the political system of the EU along with a select group of international lawyers and civil servants are in a privileged position to fathom what this all means, but we are the privileged few. This, I believe, brings significant issues in the context of a referendum (and apologies for the proceeding rant):

1. Very few of the voting public will read the text of the deal, and among those that do, very few have the political and legal knowledge to know what it means and what it changes. The draft deal cross references to several existing EU treaty articles and protocols, again which the vast majority either won't read or won't understand if they try. We are asking people to make a significant decision on the future prosperity of this country without understanding the implications of their collective decision (whether out or in). I do not mean to insult the collective intelligence of the British electorate, but to draw attention to the fact that political knowledge in this country is very poor. I think it is incredibly unfair on the millions voters in this country to present them with such a significant decision, yet not equip them with the necessary knowledge. Indeed, it's in recognition of this fact that we live (most of the time) in a representative democracy with accountable political leaders making decisions on our behalf.

2. Given the above, voters will be relying on the opposing campaigns to convey what the deal means. But, knowing that the vast majority don't know what the deal means, this leads campaigns (on both sides) to over simply its meaning and, dare I say it, distort the truth. All rational and informed debate is lost as this become a process to win over people hearts to vote in or out, rather than giving them the facts to make an informed choice. The deal is inconsequential anyway given campaigns on all sides have long been putting their messages out there, and none of them are going to change their positions in light of this deal.

3. Voters won't be able to rely on the media to accurately covey understanding either as knowledge on how the EU operates is drastically lacking in our media (the only newspaper I trust to get the facts right on this is the Financial Times). I'm unsure if it's a misinformed attempt to simply what is a complex institutional structure, or if it's just basic incompetence, but basic facts about what the various EU institutions do are almost always wrong. For example, much of the mainstream media in this country is content to call the European Court of Human Rights an EU institution, claim the European Commission passes EU legislation and claim national government have no say of EU directives, all of which are false.

4. Most significantly, I think this points to a crisis in our political system. We live in a representative democracy. I elect my MP to make these complex and important decisions on my behalf. The referendum has been masked as an exercise in popular democracy, but in reality it is a reflection of the lack of political leadership in this country. Rather than making a decision, sticking to it and facing the consequences of democratic accountability, the government is effectively using the electorate of the UK as a scapegoat. Whatever the decision, if we end up worse off the government has absolved itself from accountability. We end up with paradox: by holding a 'democratic' referendum, we have actually weakened the quality of our democracy (food for thought).

I've only skim read a couple of the documents so far as I've been teaching all day, but might offer some thoughts following a closer reading of the whole lot later on.

 

[90sWereBetter]

I'm most likely gonna vote to stay in. At the moment, it's on the basis of "better the devil you know", but I'll certainly have a look at both sides, although the leave campaign are gonna need some strong arguments to sway me.

 

[gordonthemoron]

How does leaving the EU affect pensions ?


Cheers in advance.

Personal Pensions' value going down the pan due to collapse of the stock market

 

[crehld]

How does leaving the EU affect pensions ?


Cheers in advance.

Personal Pensions' value going down the pan due to collapse of the stock market

That's a potential risk. But you might also consider more mundane rules, for example governing the rights to draw your pension if you plan to retire to the south coast of France. Or perhpas even more significant, EU rules on the liquidity investment banks where most pensions are held. Would you trust a UK government to re-introduce rules which are regarded by the financial services sector as risk averse and burdensome in order protect pension pots should we decide to leave (I don't!).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Personal Pensions' value going down the pan due to collapse of the stock market

What reason do you have to believe the stock market would collapse if we left the EU?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I shall most definitely be voting to stay. For a number of reasons.

1 - I grew up in the South Wales valleys. The area has had an awful lot of funding from the EU in the form of grants and loans and the like, and while there is an argument to be made about how well that money has actually been used (and how much has been wasted), the fact is that less money would have been put into the area without the EU.

2 - Freedom of movement works both ways. Being in the EU allows us to take advantage of wonderful schemes like Erasmus and for Brits to choose where they want to live (all the whinging about immigrants coming to the UK always ignores the fact the almost 2 million Brits live elsewhere in Europe).

3 - The fact that leaving would potentially mean that talented and hard working people from the EU who have settled in the UK would have to leave. The situation with some foreign nationals living and working in the UK is already unfair to some (I had a housemate who graduated with a good degree from a top university and was offered good job related to her degree soon after graduation and the hoops she and the employer had to jump through were just insane), why do we want to make it worse for some of the people we want to encourage to stay in this country??

4 - The fact that the referendum even occurring seems to be a result of misplaced nationalism, misinformed tabloid outrage (that is just a mechanism to sell more papers rather than to actually inform the public) and the ability of certain members of the political world to blame everything on the EU so much that people end up believing it.

Of course, 2 and 3 could possibly be overcome by agreements with the EU by an outside of EU Britain, however we would be entirely at the will of the EU with no chance of making any changes / decisions and so would have LESS control of such things rather than more.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

1. Very few of the voting public will read the text of the deal, and among those that do, very few have the political and legal knowledge to know what it means and what it changes. The draft deal cross references to several existing EU treaty articles and protocols, again which the vast majority either won't read or won't understand if they try. We are asking people to make a significant decision on the future prosperity of this country without understanding the implications of their collective decision (whether out or in). I do not mean to insult the collective intelligence of the British electorate, but to draw attention to the fact that political knowledge in this country is very poor. I think it is incredibly unfair on the millions voters in this country to present them with such a significant decision, yet not equip them with the necessary knowledge. Indeed, it's in recognition of this fact that we live (most of the time) in a representative democracy with accountable political leaders making decisions on our behalf.

(Lots of other stuff snipped).

Very sensible post. Completely agree with what you've written. Sadly though, non of it is of any help in deciding which way to vote Maybe, since it sounds like you have a fair bit of expertise on EU matters, once you've digested the text of the agreement, if you come across any links that explain in a manner likely to be understandable to the layman what the proposals mean in practice (and for that matter how the EU actually works in the first place) you could direct us to them?

 

[St Rollox]

Fair play to everybody being very reasonable in their opinions.
Wonder how long that will last?

 

[NY Yankee]

There are many advantages of the European Union. One of them is a unified Europe. A person can live in London and work in Paris (or vice versa). People can travel throughout Europe without dealing with tedious restrictions. The European Union facilitates the flow of goods and services amongst the member nations. This benefits the economies of those respective nations.

A major disadvantage is that the stronger nations (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands...) often have to support the weaker nations (Greece, Hungary, Poland...). Another disadvantage is that the European Union may make a decision that adversely affects a country (for example, lovely Angela Merkel forced several European Union nations to accept migrants, over the objections of their citizens).

 

[ComUtoR]

Personal Pensions' value going down the pan due to collapse of the stock market

Pensions are indeed based on the value of shares and I can see how our place in the EU will affect share prices.

Pension pots dropped recently due to the oil crisis as pensions had shares in BP and Shell but that is more down to pension management than anything else. How much will the share price of the huge blue chip companies be affected by an EU exit ?

Part of my concerns are that you highlight that leaving the EU affects your pension and when you look deeper its kinda more scaremongering than cold hard facts. Which highlights crehld's excellent post.

I was hoping, and still am, that its more than just pensions being share based and that you can enlighten me further about pensions being directly affected by an EU exit.

I want to vote yes/no based on facts and not out of fear. I'm not calling you or anyone out but statements like yours makes people like me worry about how this vote will turn out as well as how the vote is being swayed.

I'm happy to be educated further about Pensions and how staying in or coming out affects them.

 

[radamfi]

A major disadvantage is that the stronger nations (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands...) often have to support the weaker nations (Greece, Hungary, Poland...)

The idea is that the poorer regions of Europe (which include some parts of the richer countries, like Cornwall and West Wales) receive funding to develop their economies with the aim of reducing the disparities within regions. This would enable these regions to afford to buy goods and services from richer ones. So it isn't just a one-way street.

Another reason for having the poorer countries in central/eastern Europe inside the EU is geopolitical. Keeping them integrated with western European countries keeps them out of Russia's sphere of influence.

 

[Robertj21a]

I would like to see the various debates spend more time covering our sovereignty, our borders, migration and how only our elected government retains control over laws that are appropriate to the UK.

 

[WessexEclectic]

One thing that I was always pleased about was not being part of the Eurozone.

It's funny how the same people that were arguing for this country to join the euro are now saying that leaving the EU will be disasterous.

If you want to learn about where the EU is intending to move towards, read the Five Presidents Report, ie. a two-tier European Union with UK in the second tier.

Watch carefully how Cameron will spin this as the 'British solution'.

Here's the thing, Cameron will be presenting the EU's idea as his own, so how mutch negotiating is really being done at the moment?...

 

[yorksrob]

I'm pretty much a novice, however, I have a few red lines which make me pretty sceptical of the EU as it stands currently.

Firstly I believe strongly that member states should be able to decide how their public services are run and owned, be they rail, postal, utility, health or indeed whatever a country deems to be a public service. This means that I am opposed to such things as the fourth railway package which seems to force further separation of track and train operating companies on member states. I'm also against liberalisation of postal services as I believe a state monopoly is best placed to guarantee the necessary cross-subsidies, so the third postal directive is another example of a directive that violates this red line.

I'm against the single currency because it traps economies that are very different in damaging and unrealistic exchange rates. At the very least, I believe that non- Euro states that do not currently have opt-outs should have their full right to choose whether to join the Euro or not enshrined in perpetuity as is the case with the UK and Denmark.

I'd quite like to see a more liberal attitude to national opt-outs in general, rather than countries having to argue the toss on every issue. For example I believe that Denmark's opt-out requiring residents to live in the country for a certain amount of time before purchasing housing, might be a useful tool that should be available to us in solving London's housing problem.

I'm also very keen on the extension of the concept of subsidiarity, which is currently endorsed by the EU, but there seems to be little evidence that it means a lot in reality.
Examples of this which spring to mind are VAT. I see absolutely no justification why the EU should specify a minimum rate of VAT or what products it should be varied on. The UK has for many years levied a lower rate of VAT on certain energy saving products which has benefitted the insulation industry, the Governments own commitments to reducing carbon emissions and people struggling in cold homes. In June 2015, this was ruled illegal by the ECJ. IMO such micro-managing needs to be reduced. Mr Tusk offering to ditch the 'tampon tax' isn't enough.

With regards to this re-negotiation, having glanced through the document, it has some good points. 'Ever Closer Union' is defined as being uncoupled from greater political union, which is good. I'd be interested to see what that means in practice.

It seems to include some useful safeguards for non-Euro countries, although I couldn't spot any specific reference to the Euro not being the only currency of the EU, which is unfortunate. I think it's important that the other non-Euro states are released from their treaty obligation to eventually join the Euro because it would demonstrate willingness to learn from the past mistakes of forcing everyone down the same path.

There's an interesting reference to some sort of a mechanism for reviewing existing legislation in terms of 'subsidiarity' which would be welcome, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Perhaps it would sort out the VAT problem

Sadly nothing about public services, but then you wouldn't expect that from a Tory negotiation.

In all, there are some good things that come from the EU, for example freedom of movement (although I see this more as rights of citizens to go to different countries, rather than a lack of border controls per se) and it would be very good if the EU could coordinate to reduce corporate tax avoidance.

So all in all - I'm keeping an open mind for the time being.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the single currency has largely outlived its usefulness and benefits. When it started, people primarily paid cash for things and took travellers' cheques (remember those?) on holiday. I remember moving to Hamburg for the year with 500 quid's worth of deutschmarks and another 500 quid in travellers' cheques in my pocket. In 2016, people are more likely to use credit and debit cards which convert seamlessly between currencies at largely not excessive fees.

Different currencies simply aren't the barrier they once were.

 

[richa2002]

Do you believe in democracy? Yes, well you have to vote to leave. Staying in is saying that someone in Estonia has just as much right to decide how we are ruled than you do. It's as simple as that.

 

[yorksrob]

4. Most significantly, I think this points to a crisis in our political system. We live in a representative democracy. I elect my MP to make these complex and important decisions on my behalf. The referendum has been masked as an exercise in popular democracy, but in reality it is a reflection of the lack of political leadership in this country. Rather than making a decision, sticking to it and facing the consequences of democratic accountability, the government is effectively using the electorate of the UK as a scapegoat. Whatever the decision, if we end up worse off the government has absolved itself from accountability. We end up with paradox: by holding a 'democratic' referendum, we have actually weakened the quality of our democracy (food for thought).

The older I get, the less keen I am on representative democracy as we have it. For starters, representative democracy is fine for parliaments which can't bind their successors, but I don't really trust the politicians for longer term decisions. I'm particularly sceptical about representatives exercising the 'Royal Perogative' and binding parliaments with international treaties that are difficult to unpick. For me 'Leadership' has too often seemed like putting up with a narrow party establishment.

I'd rather see us develop more along the lines of the Swiss, who are about to vote on an interesting proposal to have a guaranteed national income (see other thread) as well as an interesting decision on whether to nationalise the production of money (currently undertaken by private banks). Could you imagine this country having an informed debate about the money supply ?

 

[Bevan Price]

I am undecided. Personally I think that the (now departed) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was a much better concept than the EU. Like YorksRob, I think that EU should not be allowed any control over our tax or welfare policy, or how we operate our railways, buses, energy industry, etc.

I think that EU wastes lots of money on inefficient practices, for example having two separate parliaments (Brussels, Strasbourg). Also the common agricultural policy needs to be revised. But there are too many people with vested interests in keeping the status quo for us to expect early improvements.

However, I approve of easy movement across borders (subject to ability to keep out "undesirables"), and the lack of trade tariffs / barriers. And I have an intrinsic desire not to support Farage and his UKIP.

The best prospects of getting unbiased assessment of the consequences (stay or leave) are on National Radio & TV - I don't read newspapers, and even if I did, I wouldn't believe any of their biased political comments, largely based on the motives of their owners.

 

[crehld]

A major disadvantage is that the stronger nations (UK, France, Germany, Netherlands...) often have to support the weaker nations (Greece, Hungary, Poland...).

It makes perfect economic sense to do this. Support the economic development of less well off nations and regions so they can be come a fully participating member of the single market. Everyone's a winner. Indeed, for much of the UK's membership to the EEC/EU it has been a net receiver from rather than a net contributor to, the EU budget, as it has been supported by significant investment through various EU regional policy programmes, bankrolled by other EU member states. As another poster said it's not just a one way street. And besides calculations over net gains and benefits never take into account economic prosperity generated through EU membership, nor do they consider the more qualitative benefits stemming from recognizing that in a globalized economy it is better to conduct ones foreign and international economic policy in an influential bloc rather than go it alone.

Another disadvantage is that the European Union may make a decision that adversely affects a country (for example, lovely Angela Merkel forced several European Union nations to accept migrants, over the objections of their citizens).

Angela Merkel cannot, and does not, force other EU nations to accept migrants over their citizens' objections.

Part of my concerns are that you highlight that leaving the EU affects your pension and when you look deeper its kinda more scaremongering than cold hard facts. Which highlights crehld's excellent post.

I was hoping, and still am, that its more than just pensions being share based and that you can enlighten me further about pensions being directly affected by an EU exit.

I want to vote yes/no based on facts and not out of fear. I'm not calling you or anyone out but statements like yours makes people like me worry about how this vote will turn out as well as how the vote is being swayed.

I think this nicely summarizes the issue we have when debating the EU in this country.

Another reason for having the poorer countries in central/eastern Europe inside the EU is geopolitical. Keeping them integrated with western European countries keeps them out of Russia's sphere of influence.

An interesting point, as this was the motivation behind the United States' enthusiastic support and encouragement of economic and political integration in the 1950s. Oh how things have(n't) changed!

I would like to see the various debates spend more time covering our sovereignty, our borders, migration and how only our elected government retains control over laws that are appropriate to the UK.

On borders and migration I'm of the opinion that whether we are in the EU or not is immaterial. We already retain substantial control over our borders compared to other EU member states. If we leave we will not gain the level of control over our borders that would satisfy some people. It's simply not realistic and even if we could manage it, the UK economy would grind to a halt without economic migration.

The question over sovereignty is interesting. A significant proportion of the deal has focused on the question of so-called subsidiarity (what you call "only our elected government retains control over laws that are appropriate to the UK") and ensuring national parliaments are given greater influence. And on this issue Cameron's got what he wanted (it was the least controversial of proposals anyway)

However we need to consider the differences between our de jure sovereignty (our legal sovereignty, what's written on paper if you like) and our de facto sovereignty (how much sovereignty we can actually exercise, the reality). In a globalized world where many of the policy problems we face are inherently transnational in nature, the very idea of sovereignty is meaningless. What de jure sovereignty we have means very little in the real world. So perhaps sacrificing some of our ineffective de jure sovereignty to the EU as a means to increase influence and thereby enhance our de facto sovereignty in the wider world is a good idea? These are complex arguments

It's funny how the same people that were arguing for this country to join the euro are now saying that leaving the EU will be disasterous.

Are they?? There are many (myself included) who have argued against joining the euro, but hold that leaving the EU would be disasterous!

If you want to learn about where the EU is intending to move towards, read the Five Presidents Report, ie. a two-tier European Union with UK in the second tier.

Of course. This is the result of the British government actively opting out of significant elements of economic and monetary integration. The two-tier system has been created by the British government (and certain others who also chose to opt out), not imposed upon them by the rest of the EU.

Watch carefully how Cameron will spin this as the 'British solution'.

Of course he will.

Here's the thing, Cameron will be presenting the EU's idea as his own, so how mutch negotiating is really being done at the moment?...

A lot (and there'll be a lot more to come). And to be fair to Cameron he's done incredibly well to get a draft deal which largely reflects his intended outcomes. EU politics is a constant negotiation and the UK is one of 28 member states who are all on equal footing. The perception held by some that the UK should be able to have its cake and eat it in an international political arena is nonsense, and as ridiculous as the notion that the UK is some sort of passive push over which just gets told what to do by Brussels. I also think it's important to stress that the UK is an influential actor in EU politics, and much of how the EU operates today, it's process and policies, are a reflection of British government interests. EU competition policy, for example, is basically a copy and paste from the British government wish list!

Do you believe in democracy? Yes, well you have to vote to leave. Staying in is saying that someone in Estonia has just as much right to decide how we are ruled than you do. It's as simple as that.

It's not as simple as that. In fact it's a gross over-simplification which distorts the reality of how EU politics works. And this merely confirms my argument that most people don't appreciate how the EU actually works, and have be grossly misinformed by our media and political leaders.

I am undecided. Personally I think that the (now departed) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was a much better concept than the EU. Like YorksRob, I think that EU should not be allowed any control over our tax or welfare policy, or how we operate our railways, buses, energy industry, etc.

I understand the sentiment, but as I argued above, it is not possible to have an economic free trade area without including elements considered 'political' to make it work. If you want to maintain control over your key industries and areas of economic activity then actually a free trade area really isn't the thing for you and you'd be better off trying to isolate your economy and protect home grown industries from the rest of the world through protectionist measures (which of course would either be ineffective when operating in a capitalist global economy or simply be economic suicide).

I think that EU wastes lots of money on inefficient practices, for example having two separate parliaments (Brussels, Strasbourg). Also the common agricultural policy needs to be revised. But there are too many people with vested interests in keeping the status quo for us to expect early improvements.

It's technically one parliament with two seats, but yes I agree that's a waste. Especially as the building in Strasbourg is only occupied for five weeks of the year. However I think it's important to dismiss the misconception of the EU as some sort of inefficient bureaucracy. For example the European Commission which acts as a central bureaucracy for 500 million citizens employs the same number of people as Birmingham City Council, a bureaucracy covering only 1 million. And, in the grand scheme of things, the EU budget really very small.

The best prospects of getting unbiased assessment of the consequences (stay or leave) are on National Radio & TV - I don't read newspapers, and even if I did, I wouldn't believe any of their biased political comments, largely based on the motives of their owners.

I remain unconvinced that national radio and TV are any better than the printed press. The simple fact is the British media isn't interested in investing their time and resources to cover EU news, and only does so when there's a clear link to national politics. Compare that to the investment made by media in other European countries and the difference is stark.