Should We Leave the EU?

[crehld]

Yes, those people who want to build a kind of United States of Europe are traitors and should be evicted from the country at once!

Do you mean Sir Winston Churchill, often regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers of the twentieth century, should be considered at traitor?!? :roll:

...
What is this sovereign remedy?

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.

...

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

 

[Tetchytyke]

One government, one fiscal system, one army, one welfare system, one police force, one currency

Why do you think that is such a bad thing?

 

[Steveman]

Why do you think that is such a bad thing?

I'm one of those rare people who actually are proud of England which of course would automatically see me as racist in todays climate. I don't care, I don't want to see the country swallowed up and be a parish council ruled by Germany.

Before you say Germany wouldn't have any more say than anybody else if you look at the EU now Germany is totally dominant and what Merkel wants she gets.
Can you name anything major Germany has opposed which has come to pass anyway ?

See Greece for a good example as to how the Germans have well and truly shafted them.

You can have your USE I hope you'll be very happy there.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm one of those rare people who actually are proud of England which of course would automatically see me as racist in todays climate. I don't care, I don't want to see the country swallowed up and be a parish council ruled by Germany.

Before you say Germany wouldn't have any more say than anybody else if you look at the EU now Germany is totally dominant and what Merkel wants she gets.
Can you name anything major Germany has opposed which has come to pass anyway ?

See Greece for a good example as to how the Germans have well and truly shafted them.

You can have your USE I hope you'll be very happy there.

what on earth are you talking about? There is no reasoning or logic there just random rantings based on media reports and prejudice!

 

[crehld]

I'm one of those rare people who actually are proud of England which of course would automatically see me as racist in todays climate. I don't care, I don't want to see the country swallowed up and be a parish council ruled by Germany.

Before you say Germany wouldn't have any more say than anybody else if you look at the EU now Germany is totally dominant and what Merkel wants she gets.
Can you name anything major Germany has opposed which has come to pass anyway ?

See Greece for a good example as to how the Germans have well and truly shafted them.

You can have your USE I hope you'll be very happy there.

In a comment I regularly have to apply to the margins of my undergraduate students: "demonstrates no knowledge of the EU's institutional structure and the role of the member states". A couple of marks might be awarded for knowing that Germany is a place in Europe that actually exists and that Merkel is someone who has some sort of role there. I guess the comment about Greece does have some basis in reality, although it's a gross over-simplification of the situation.

I don't blame you at all - rather I sympathize. You're one of 45 million who have been given power over an important decision which will affect the long-term future prosperity of this country (which I am also proud of - can't see how that makes you or me a racist, perhaps you could explain?) without any adequate knowledge to make an informed decision. We have a media which is more intent on actually fabricating EU nonsense for a 'good' headline rather than reporting the factual mundanity of EU politics. Our political leadership who are in a position of knowledge and power have absolved themselves of accountability through the illusion of popular democracy.

If it wasn't so prevalent in our political culture I'd actually be quite offended at how such misinformation and misperceptions are allowed to proliferate and how various groups take advantage of it.

It's a real shame at how such an important and complicated debate (both in this thread and beyond) on the future of our country has to be dominated by the fabricated and the uninformed. Actually, perhaps I shouldn't be proud of this country if this is how our politics operates.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm one of those rare people who actually are proud of England which of course would automatically see me as racist in todays climate.

Your first part of the statement above was fine and I completely agree with it. Your second part immediately tells me that you are - at - best - very uninformed.

You know what? I was born in England, I see myself as both English and British, and I too am proud of both heritages. Our country is admittedly imperfect in many ways, but has much to commend it in its culture and history - and of course it holds an emotional bond that I'm sure many people will feel about their home nations. I love the UK and want to see it and the people who live in it prosper.

But making silly claims such as 'would automatically see me as racist in today's climate' - claims which clearly stem from believing too much tabloid scaremongering, and have little to do with reality is not a tradition of which you can be proud. I've seen lots of cases where people have been accused of racism. In some cases, including on this forum, the accusation is inaccurate (after all, whatever your political opinions are, there's always a minority who will abuse those opinions. People on the left suffer from that just as much as people on the right), but usually in my experience, claims of racism arise because the person has made some remark that is - by any reasonable objective standard - racist, and not because that person happens to be proud of the UK.

I don't care, I don't want to see the country swallowed up and be a parish council ruled by Germany.

This makes no sense at all, again, unless you have been reading and believing too much untrue anti-EU propaganda.

Honestly, I started out as completely undecided about our membership of the EU, but the fact that mostly all the 'out' camp seem to do is post untruths and frankly absurd claims about the EU is making me start to think, if those are the only arguments the 'out' people can provide, then perhaps there really are no good rational arguments for leaving, and therefore we should stay in.

If anyone has any good *rational* arguments for leaving the EU (as opposed to some emotional perception that a law made in the UK is by definition somehow better than a completely identical law that happens to have been formulated in Europe), then I'd love to hear them!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm one of those rare people who actually are proud of England which of course would automatically see me as racist in todays climate.

One can be proud of where one is from without being racist. I'm a proud Yorkshireman, Englishman and Australian.

The racists at Britain First are not seen as racist because of national pride. They're seen as racist because they're, well, a bit lot racist.

Before you say Germany wouldn't have any more say than anybody else if you look at the EU now Germany is totally dominant and what Merkel wants she gets.

This shows a spectacular misunderstanding as to how the EU works. In the executive, the EU Council, it is one member one vote. Germany has no more say than anyone else. In many ways, the UK, with its vetos, is more powerful.

Can you name anything major Germany has opposed which has come to pass anyway ?

Of course not, that's not how consensus politics works, although...

See Greece for a good example as to how the Germans have well and truly shafted them.

...interesting that you mention Greece. Germany didn't "get what it wanted".

Let's try again. I'm genuinely ambivalent towards the EU, and can be persuaded either way. Why is the EU having political power bad?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If anyone has any good *rational* arguments for leaving the EU (as opposed to some emotional perception that a law made in the UK is by definition somehow better than a completely identical law that happens to have been formulated in Europe), then I'd love to hear them!

Yep, this is pretty much my view too.

I'm genuinely ambivalent about the EU. I'm happy to see arguments from either side to persuade me.

However, so far, much of the argument coming from the leave camp is based on emotional rhetoric and a misrepresentation of basic facts.

The way the leave group confuse the Council of Europe and the European Union is either disingenuous or demonstrative of a significant lack of basic knowledge, and I am not sure which is worse. Even if the Council of Europe are a load of rubbish, the referendum is not asking about membership of the Council of Europe, and we can remain a member of the Council of Europe even if we are no longer members of the European Union.

 

[radamfi]

I'm one of those rare people who actually are proud of England

So are people in the other 27 member states not proud of their country?

 

[Oswyntail]

....interesting that you mention Greece. Germany didn't "get what it wanted".

Let's try again. I'm genuinely ambivalent towards the EU, and can be persuaded either way. Why is the EU having political power bad?

There is a problem that this little exchange highlights. There are undeniable economic problems in Greece; what appears to be the case is that these have been exacerbated by the undue influence of Germany. However, this is because of the Eurozone, not the EU - we re not voting on the Euro, but no one seems to be making this bit at all clear. It is not helped by the deliberate conflation in German (and others') policy of manipulating the EU as if it were the Eurozone. Nor does the apparent ignorance in the higher reaches of the ECB about the role of a Central Bank make anything clearer.
The fact is that there are so many different organisational layers by which parts of Europe are described, it is almost impossible to achieve clarity about what we mean by "The EU"

 

[tony_mac]

I'm genuinely ambivalent about the EU. I'm happy to see arguments from either side to persuade me.

However, so far, much of the argument coming from the leave camp is based on emotional rhetoric and a misrepresentation of basic facts.

I'm also interested in the debate, but decent information is hard to find. A lot of arguments do seem to be about 'them' telling 'us' what we can do, regardless of details, which always makes me think of Harry Enfield's Kevin.

we can remain a member of the Council of Europe even if we are no longer members of the European Union.

However, the reverse may not be true, but nobody is actually sure. So, if we want to leave the Council of Europe, leaving the EU may end up being necessary.

Of course, if we really wanted to leave the Council of Europe, but stay in the EU, a decision would probably have been made by now. (Although, I think for our government to argue that our citizens should have fewer human rights than everyone else in Europe is quite a difficult one to sell).

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are undeniable economic problems in Greece; what appears to be the case is that these have been exacerbated by the undue influence of Germany.

I would agree about people- and not just on the leave side- confusing the EU, the Eurozone and the European Central Bank. It doesn't help that the Eurozone is a political construct not an economic one; on the original economic rules, Greece (among others) should not have been let anywhere near the Eurozone.

Although I am not convinced that Greece would have fared much better had they still had the drachma. World Bank bailouts don't come cheap or without significant pain: just ask Argentina and the people who lost all their savings in 1998.

Of course, if we really wanted to leave the Council of Europe, but stay in the EU, a decision would probably have been made by now. (Although, I think for our government to argue that our citizens should have fewer human rights than everyone else in Europe is quite a difficult one to sell).

I'd agree with this, although repeat that we're not being asked about membership of the Council of Europe. A government trying to remove us from the Council of Europe based on a referendum about membership of the European Union would be of dubious legality.

That said, given the Council of Europe contains those countries with outstanding human rights records such as Ukraine, Turkey and, er, Russia, leaving would be very brave politically.

 

[crehld]

I'm also interested in the debate, but decent information is hard to find. A lot of arguments do seem to be about 'them' telling 'us' what we can do, regardless of details, which always makes me think of Harry Enfield's Kevin.

It's a real problem. But this is not helped of course by the EU's notorious complex institutional structure, which makes it very difficult to communicate (at no doubt a factor behind dissatisfaction with the EU itself). It is basically one great big massive compromise between ensuring national governments maintain control over the whole provides while at the same time recognizing they have to surrender some control to a collective authority to actually get things done, and, given constant protestations that the EU is 'undemocratic', a parliament directly elected by the peoples of Europe.

Indeed, one of the arguments I hold against having a referendum (not that my opinion really matters given it's happening) is that there is only one group of people who actually know how the EU works and they are our political leaders, who also happen to be elected to a position of authority to take such decisions, through which we the people can hold them to account.

But I digress... for basic reading on what the EU is, what its institutions are and how they relate to each other and the member states, then the following introductory sources are quite good:

• How the European Union Works: Your Guide to the EU Institutions, by the European Commission, Publications Office of the EU, published 2014 (available for free from: http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/IN...iewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=NA0414810).
• The European Union: A Very Short Introduction by J. Pinder and S. Usherwood, Oxford University Press, published 2013 (should be available from almost all high street bookshops and online).
• The European Union: How Does it Work? (4th edition) edited by D. Kenealy, J. Peterson and R. Corbett, Oxford University Press, published 2015 (available from most academic/university bookshops and online).

More detailed and advanced textbooks are of course available for the brave!

If you want informed debate and analysis on the referendum and EU membership, then the London School of Economics and Political Science's blogs on European Politics and Policy and the Brexit vote are good starting points.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Indeed, one of the arguments I hold against having a referendum (not that my opinion really matters given it's happening) is that there is only one group of people who actually know how the EU works and they are our political leaders, who also happen to be elected to a position of authority to take such decisions, through which we the people can hold them to account.

One defintion of a referendum is that is an election to make a decision that elected politicians are too scared to make themselves

As an ex-pat looking back into the UK from the EU, all I see is that the whole thing has becomes a toxic mess of noise, bickering and nonsense where anyone who tries to have a reasoned debat backed up with facts about the EU (either for or against) will be drowned out by a dangerous mix of ignorance, "miseducation" and apathy.

I actually wonder sometimes that without the EU who would our elected national politicians (of any nation) blame. I mean, they'd have to take some responsibility and make decisions. Ironically most of the things that "the EU have foised upon us without respect for our sovereignty" have actually been put in place by national parliaments.

There was a case here in Finland where some EU directive was blamed (and put forward as proof of how bad the EU are) where the actual implementation by the Finnish government of the directive went above and beyond (to the extreme in this case) that what the actual directive required. Buy hey, blame Europe ... much better than being called to account yourself and risk losing voter support

t.

Ian

 

[Hornet]

Do you mean Sir Winston Churchill, often regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers of the twentieth century, should be considered at traitor?!? :roll:

Didn't he get beaten out of sight in the 1945 General Election. Hardly a great PM if he could not hang on to power, a couple of months after the end of WW2.

 

[crehld]

Do you mean Sir Winston Churchill, often regarded as one of the greatest prime ministers of the twentieth century, should be considered at traitor?!? :roll:

Didn't he get beaten out of sight in the 1945 General Election. Hardly a great PM if he could not hang on to power, a couple of months after the end of WW2.

Well to be fair I did say often regarded - there was an excellent BBC documentary last year I think with provided a nice corrective to the historical perspective of Churchill being the great wartime leader. It was more the ludicrous suggestion that he should be labelled a traitor I was taking issue with.

 

[overthewater]

Well to be fair I did say often regarded - there was an excellent BBC documentary last year I think with provided a nice corrective to the historical perspective of Churchill being the great wartime leader. It was more the ludicrous suggestion that he should be labelled a traitor I was taking issue with.

That was a nice Doc.
He was a great Wartime leader just an dreadful peacetime leader. He was booed at rallys, and never won the popular vote in 1951, and alot of working class people just hated him.

 

[ExRes]

Didn't he get beaten out of sight in the 1945 General Election. Hardly a great PM if he could not hang on to power, a couple of months after the end of WW2.

Churchill had spent the entire war period leading the country through, yes, a war, he hardly had the spare time to work on an election campaign and I'm sure many people blamed him, as their leader, for the deprivations and hardships they had suffered

You may find this BBC article from 2011 of interest

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc....shtml&usg=AFQjCNFJNww24xFTpIM55jMy8-n5TkFmtg

 

[Busaholic]

Churchill had spent the entire war period leading the country through, yes, a war, he hardly had the spare time to work on an election campaign and I'm sure many people blamed him, as their leader, for the deprivations and hardships they had suffered

You may find this BBC article from 2011 of interest

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc....shtml&usg=AFQjCNFJNww24xFTpIM55jMy8-n5TkFmtg

The Beveridge Report leading to the creation of the NHS would never have happened under a Conservative government led by Churchill or anyone else. It did, of course, happen under a Labour government.

 

[Butts]

The Beveridge Report leading to the creation of the NHS would never have happened under a Conservative government led by Churchill or anyone else. It did, of course, happen under a Labour government.

....Once they had bribed all the Doctors to participate

 

[DarloRich]

Well to be fair I did say often regarded - there was an excellent BBC documentary last year I think with provided a nice corrective to the historical perspective of Churchill being the great wartime leader. It was more the ludicrous suggestion that he should be labelled a traitor I was taking issue with.

indeed - much as i am sniveling leftie pinko commie moron i would say it is a very close call between Churchill and Attlee ( who beat him in 1945) as to who was the best PM.

Chruchill, the bellicose war time orator or Attlee the quiet consensus builder who built the NHS and welfare state? Personally i would go for Churchill ( if pushed) if only because without him what came after could have been very different.

That was a nice Doc.
He was a great Wartime leader just an dreadful peacetime leader. He was booed at rallys, and never won the popular vote in 1951, and alot of working class people just hated him.

Sending troops to crush the general strike didn't go down well...........
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Churchill had spent the entire war period leading the country through, yes, a war, he hardly had the spare time to work on an election campaign and I'm sure many people blamed him, as their leader, for the deprivations and hardships they had suffered

You may find this BBC article from 2011 of interest

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc....shtml&usg=AFQjCNFJNww24xFTpIM55jMy8-n5TkFmtg

he did seem out of touch with the wishes of the people after the war. He wanted to continue the status quo (privilege, empire, deference etc) while they wanted change and the land fit for heroes and the accompanying social change so often promised.

 

[radamfi]

The new constituency boundaries coming into force in 2020 will effectively give the Conservatives unrestricted power for the next few decades at least. Freedom of movement gives people the opportunity to escape that if they so wish.

 

[Mvann]

The new constituency boundaries coming into force in 2020 will effectively give the Conservatives unrestricted power for the next few decades at least. Freedom of movement gives people the opportunity to escape that if they so wish.

Unless they implode over the referendum.

 

[Blamethrower]

People here say "I haven't seen any good arguments for leaving, just emotional rhetoric"

I completely disagree. I think it is the other way round. I have yet to hear 1 cogent argument for remaining, especially 1 that can relate to the population. "Big business need it" will never win any arguments as this relies on MEPs. I also think it's disingenuous to say that younger/educated people want to stay because they work for companies that require EU cooperation.

I would postulate that the younger generation are much more prone to influencing and media reports as they haven't had enough life experience to make an informed decision based on experience, or become more cynical/distrusting of big business.

We all want to stay in the EEC and join the EFTA.

The EU superstate is completely irrelevant to everyone except to those who have a vested interest (companies who bankroll MEPs)

 

[tony_mac]

People here say "I haven't seen any good arguments for leaving, just emotional rhetoric"

I completely disagree. I think it is the other way round. I have yet to hear 1 cogent argument for remaining, especially 1 that can relate to the population.

I am not going through all of the posts, how about refuting the points that people have made that you don't find convincing?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2451901&postcount=17

"Big business need it" will never win any arguments as this relies on MEPs.

I've no idea what this means.

I also think it's disingenuous to say that younger/educated people want to stay because they work for companies that require EU cooperation.

Why is that disingenuous?

I would postulate that the younger generation are much more prone to influencing and media reports as they haven't had enough life experience to make an informed decision based on experience, or become more cynical/distrusting of big business.

Isn't it odd that also the more educated people are more influenced by these media reports? I haven't noticed an overwhelming pro-EU bias from most media organisations.

(Disclaimer: My post has been funded via an EU grant, but is not currently.)

 

[Steveman]

I would postulate that the younger generation are much more prone to influencing and media reports as they haven't had enough life experience to make an informed decision based on experience, or become more cynical/distrusting of big business.

Nail on head moment there, prepare to be flamed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I also think it's disingenuous to say that younger/educated people want to stay because they work for companies that require EU cooperation.

Why is it disingenuous?

We run a trade surplus with the EU in services, primarily education, finance and law. The people working in these sectors tend, on average, to be younger and have reached a higher level of educational attainment. I don't think my employer would have the global reputation it has without the benefits that the common market and deregulated migration brings.

I would postulate that the younger generation are much more prone to influencing and media reports as they haven't had enough life experience to make an informed decision based on experience, or become more cynical/distrusting of big business.

The reality doesn't bear that out, though. Both of the UK's biggest selling newspapers are against the EU, as is Sky News. If "media influence" affected younger people more than older people, one would expect younger people to be more vehemently against the EU. They're not.

An excellent example would also be the 2015 General Election. Again, the biggest selling newspapers were in favour of the Conservatives. Younger people tended to vote Labour, with the discrepancies in polling data being attributed to older people silently voting Conservative.

I completely disagree. I think it is the other way round. I have yet to hear 1 cogent argument for remaining, especially 1 that can relate to the population.

The only argument for remaining is "this is what we currently have, this is how it benefits us economically, do you like it or not?"

The burden of proof in an argument always falls towards the people who are arguing for change.

The only argument I've seen so far is that the European Court of Human Rights "force us to pay money to terrorists". Never mind the fact that the ECHR isn't the EU, has nothing to do with the EU, and we'll still be a member even if we leave the EU. Nor, for that matter, the fact the ECHR didn't decide that.

Nail on head moment there, prepare to be flamed.

Disagreeing with someone isn't "flaming" them, you know.

But that's a Farage special isn't it? Anyone who disagrees with him is a "troll" or a "social justice warrior", because all "right thinking people" think exactly what he thinks.

 

[NSEFAN]

Nail on head moment there, prepare to be flamed.

I actually agree with the point, to an extent. I wouldn't say however that age is necessary to be able to see when someone is talking B.S. People berate media studies yet it was there where I realised how effective the media is at getting people to think the "right" way!

You also need to avoid Golden Age syndrome (something that comes with age and experience!), where people's memories favour the positive experiences of the past over the negative ones, creating the illusion that the past was better.

If we want to talk about who we should distrust, we should remember that things like the working time directive come from the EU. Before them we weren't entitled to the length of time off that we enjoy now. If we were to leave the regulatory framework created by the EU, what's to stop a big-business-loving government from cutting such rights?

 

[miami]

The question is should we remain part of the EU. There's a good argument that this isn't a decision to make on specifics, like what is best for jobs or immigration or the economy, as the reality is we can't know what a post-withdrawal world would look like.

To me, the question is more "should we continue to integrate with europe as we have done for the last 70 years, or should we stand alone and deal with europe on a case by case basis as we did for the 900 years before that

It's more akin with the "should Scotland be an independent country" question. The various claims about figures and free movement and the NHS come and go, but the fundamental essence is should we stand as part of a larger mostly similar group of countries

 

[Busaholic]

The new constituency boundaries coming into force in 2020 will effectively give the Conservatives unrestricted power for the next few decades at least. Freedom of movement gives people the opportunity to escape that if they so wish.

They are creating peers at such a rate that half the population will be in the House of Lords soon.

 

[Trog]

You also need to avoid Golden Age syndrome (something that comes with age and experience!), where people's memories favour the positive experiences of the past over the negative ones, creating the illusion that the past was better.

Is it just me or is nostalgia not what it used to be?