Should the UK leave or remain in the EU

Scroll to see replies

We should leave.
I don't buy the staying in economic argument. The EU is looking stale and stagnant economically, dragged down by the poorly performing southern economies, and it's a complete fallacy to reason that because a lot of our trade is currently with the EU then we'd simply completely lose all of it if we left and be unable to make it up elsewhere. We're a three trillion dollar economy. Europe will still want to buy from us and they certainly will still want to sell to us. We'd then also be free to court other lucrative trading markets away from continental interference.
You also know what they say about Dutch disease and the pitfalls of concentrating all your eggs in one basket. If we are actually indeed reliant on the EU then advocating the status quo is the last thing we should be doing.
Plus national sovereignty and all that.

Reply 21

Gallaher

With the current state the European Union is in I would vote to leave however if changes were made that corrected some of its major problems then I would consider staying in. A reformed and more economically centred EU could work without so many restrictions and directives. Another flaw is its lack of democracy which makes the whole institution weaker than what it could be whilst the sheer cost of its administration and operation is unjustifiable.

Reply 22

Davij038

Original post by sleepysnooze

it's preventing us from making our own trade deals. our chair at the WTO = "the EU"

We've successfully set up plenty of trade deals most recently with China and India. We seem to be doing well out of it so why bother?

http://news.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/

the EU shouldn't even have a damned president! why would a weak union (like the europhiles always frame it as) have a president? I don't understand that at all. if it's not a federation then how could it have a president?

Most power resides in the council. It's essentially a more democratic head of state able to build consensus and pass laws (that can be striked down by any member state)

so if every EU country wanted to go to war in iraq again (for instance) but we didn't, you'd still support an EU foreign policy?

You do realise that if a NATO member is atracked we our bound by law to assist that country even if the electorate do not want to ?

Besides I cannot envision any foreign policy scenario which would make 27 member states go to war but would make Britain averse to it .

Besides- there was plenty of opposition to the last Iraq war but we still went.

Reply 23

Davij038

Original post by Drewski

Is not necessarily what they are doing, but what they are possibly able to do. I don't like the notion that people we haven't voted for and who don't represent our country dictating what laws we should follow, what immigration we should allow, who we should do business with, who we should allow into the club, etc.

I like the idea of a common market, I'm not so sure about the idea of a political union.

As I said earlier the only way we can tackle corporate abuse is transnationally.

The UK is of course subject to a huge array of international law and conventions that we haven't voted on.

Reply 24

Davij038

To any out voters:

If the Remain side wins by a fair margin (say more than five percent) would you favour closet integration and overall federalisation?

Reply 25

Maker

Stay, leaving will be bad for jobs because companies and investors want access to the biggest markets. There will be fewer reasons for companies to locate in England and have to deal with a lot of red tape and costs if they want to do business with the EU when they can easily locate to N Ireland, Wales or Scotland if these countries decide to leave the UK.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 26

sleepysnooze

Original post by Davij038

1) that's not "we", that's the EU and not the UK
2) "trade deal" =/= "free trade deal".

Most power resides in the council. It's essentially a more democratic head of state able to build consensus and pass laws (that can be striked down by any member state)

it's a "democratic head of state" without the election...

You do realise that if a NATO member is atracked we our bound by law to assist that country even if the electorate do not want to ?

no we're not - that's not how the UK constitution works regarding international treaties. besides, screw NATO (in my opinion)

Besides I cannot envision any foreign policy scenario which would make 27 member states go to war but would make Britain averse to it .

Besides- there was plenty of opposition to the last Iraq war but we still went.

I know - I'm not contesting that. I'm giving you an example of an iraq war via pressure from the outside, not from the inside

Reply 27

Davij038

Original post by sleepysnooze

1) that's not "we", that's the EU and not the UK
2) "trade deal" =/= "free trade deal".

If we've already got trade deals in place and get a better deal by being on a larger market I really can't see the point in doing it indepently to get axeorsecdeal but to say we did it indepently ( which by the very nature of trade is dependent on reciprocity). I think most people would say that's a bit stupid.

it's a "democratic head of state" without the election...

He's elected by the MEPs which was exactly how Britain operated for most of its existence as a democracy.

no we're not - that's not how the UK constitution works regarding international treaties. besides, screw NATO (in my opinion)

Yes it is is. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council

As per NATO- most eurosceptics (falsely IMO ) credit the decades of European peace from it. If you don't like NATO or the EU I think you may well be looking at the rise of conflict within Europe.

I know - I'm not contesting that. I'm giving you an example of an iraq war via pressure from the outside, not from the inside

I support the Iraq war but as I recall there was huge internal opposition to it and it was initiated in tandem with the USA. Any representative government could do likewise regardless of EU membership.

Reply 28

sleepysnooze

Original post by Davij038

so it's a matter of fear for you then?

He's elected by the MEPs which was exactly how Britain operated for most of its existence as a democracy.

except he's not though, is he. he gets nominated by the EU commission and then the EU parliament can either approve or reject, but they can't propose their own candidate so rejection is pretty much delaying the inevitable.

Yes it is is. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_Sunderland_City_Council

thoburn v sunderland city council is a case regarding the EU, not NATO. the EU as a source of law is based on legislation, not a treaty.

As per NATO- most eurosceptics (falsely IMO ) credit the decades of European peace from it. If you don't like NATO or the EU I think you may well be looking at the rise of conflict within Europe.

1) what eurosceptics?
2) the idea that we'd be going to war with germany without NATO or the EU is retarded - why would we be at war with europe or european states without those institutions? why would we need political unification to avoid war? how come america has avoided war with canada without one?

what do you mean you "support the iraq war"?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 29

Davij038

Original post by sleepysnooze

so it's a matter of fear for you then?

No I don't see the point in doing it separately when we get a better deal as a group. It's about as much sense as Scotland doing its own free trade deals.

I reiterate- the problem for this is due to the council rejecting a directly elected president. Everything that had occurred has happened under the say so of sovereign states.

thoburn v sunderland city council is a case regarding the EU, not NATO. the EU as a source of law is based on legislation, not a treaty.

The point is that international law supercedes national laws.

Because it's a completely different geopolitical context. America is the biggest power in the area and could easily take on Mexico and Canada and win. This is not the case in Europe.

I think the history and tendency especially during times of crisis greatly increases the likes of conflict particularly in Europe and having economic and political interdependence mitigates that risk hugely. I also think that the concept of nation states in itself is by its nature confrontational and that between like minded states should not really apply.

what do you mean you "support the iraq war"?

I think the overthrow of saddam houssain by the UK and the U.S. Was a good thing.

Reply 30

sleepysnooze

Original post by Davij038

No I don't see the point in doing it separately when we get a better deal as a group. It's about as much sense as Scotland doing its own free trade deals.

you couldn't be clearer right now in your perception of the EU as a federation, if you're comparing member states to countries of a nation.

I reiterate- the problem for this is due to the council rejecting a directly elected president. Everything that had occurred has happened under the say so of sovereign states.

I don't think states are the ones that actually arrange these mechanisms - the commission does, and then probably (basically) says "sign this agreement, or get lost"

The point is that international law supercedes national laws.

nope - only laws that are enacted in legislation. the european communities act 1972 is a statute that is the root of all EU laws over us.

Because it's a completely different geopolitical context. America is the biggest power in the area and could easily take on Mexico and Canada and win. This is not the case in Europe.

okay then, replace "america and canada" with sweden and norway. or switzerland and austria.

I think the history and tendency especially during times of crisis greatly increases the likes of conflict particularly in Europe and having economic and political interdependence mitigates that risk hugely. I also think that the concept of nation states in itself is by its nature confrontational and that between like minded states should not really apply.

democracies don't go to war with each other though. if anything, the EU and the friction that it generates is surely just going to make matters worse.

I think the overthrow of saddam houssain by the UK and the U.S. Was a good thing.

...how? a hundred thousand civilians died as a result of that war. and that war was most likely the reason ISIS grew to prominence. and iraq's still not a democracy.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 31

username2317985

Remain in. Better for trade/business, international relations, regulations, getting our voice heard internationally, security etc.

Reply 32

TeeEm

I think we should leave and officially then annex ourselves as the 51st state of the US

Reply 33

Davij038

Original post by sleepysnooze

I don't think states are the ones that actually arrange these mechanisms - the commission does, and then probably (basically) says "sign this agreement, or get lost"

I think if that really was the case there'd be no EU.

okay then, replace "america and canada" with sweden and norway. or switzerland and austria.

There are still bigger nations nearby e.g Poland that could threaten their interests. Competing sovereign states in an enclosed environment with no clear single power and no dependence on each other is likely to result in bloodshed in my opinion or at best distrust and uncooperation.

democracies don't go to war with each other though. if anything, the EU and the friction that it generates is surely just going to make matters worse.

Democracies will occasionally go to war with each other. Liberal democracies never- but this is due to interdependence of free trade and I do not see or wish capitalism and nation states as the 'end of history' . There has been no wat between EU states - the only discontent has come after a massive recession- and considering what happened during the last Great Recession the EU has done brilliantly- notice the overt displays of nationalism and of course Putin funding eurosceptics parties in the wake of the crash (which occurred in New York) - this also shows the lie of sovereignty when economic crashes abroad can have global impact.

...how? a hundred thousand civilians died as a result of that war. and that war was most likely the reason ISIS grew to prominence. and iraq's still not a democracy.

It's too late to cover this again but I've explained my reasoning on numerous other threads which you can search. Needless to say I disagree with you

Reply 34

gladders

Original post by sleepysnooze

you couldn't be clearer right now in your perception of the EU as a federation, if you're comparing member states to countries of a nation.

The EU remains very much the creature of the Member States.

I don't think states are the ones that actually arrange these mechanisms - the commission does, and then probably (basically) says "sign this agreement, or get lost"

What you 'think' is irrelevant, because you're entirely wrong. The process for amending the Treaties is well known and has been practiced a number of times. To wit, Treaties require the unanimous approval of all Member States to be enacted - and the Commission is but one additional voice among those Member States.

nope - only laws that are enacted in legislation. the european communities act 1972 is a statute that is the root of all EU laws over us.

Davij038's point is that while parliamentary supremacy remains, we are obliged to respect those international conventions we have signed up to until Parliament expressly undoes them. The Article V commitment in NATO is one of them - it's abundantly clear that if Russia attacked Poland tomorrow, we, and the rest of NATO, would automatically be at war with Russia too, whether you like it or not.

okay then, replace "america and canada" with sweden and norway. or switzerland and austria.

It's also important to present a united front against Russia, which is clearly trying to break Europe apart.

democracies don't go to war with each other though. if anything, the EU and the friction that it generates is surely just going to make matters worse.

There is absolutely no basis to this claim, beyond the fact that a war between democracies hasn't yet happened. The dataset is too small.

Not sure what friction the EU generates that wouldn't be exacerbated without the EU being there...

Reply 35

sleepysnooze

Original post by gladders

The EU remains very much the creature of the Member States.

meaningless statement, given the context

if the member states themselves had the full editing power upon signing these treaties, why do we have such a ****ed up union that *nobody* thinks is optimum to any degree? has it been designed to be appalling or something in your opinion?

"obliged". there's your problem. obligations =/= binding. that was the point I was making.

It's also important to present a united front against Russia, which is clearly trying to break Europe apart.

why is it important? and why do you perceive russia as a threat post-cold war?

There is absolutely no basis to this claim, beyond the fact that a war between democracies hasn't yet happened. The dataset is too small.

well to be completely honest with you, the other guy's response to my part of the message here was correct enough - the distinction of "liberal" democracies is a good correction - e.g. ecuador and peru have been to war, and they were technically democracies, but they didn't have a liberal democratic culture. with that being said, europe *does* now have a democratic culture. it's stabilised now and I have no idea why it would suddenly crumble. the former yugoslav republics aren't even members of the EU, or at least most of them aren't. yet they're not fighting any more.

Not sure what friction the EU generates that wouldn't be exacerbated without the EU being there...

let me play you out some examples: sharing a currency will obviously give the eurozone a reason to blame particular countries for their own economic problems, e.g. greece ("we're not in the eurozone wa wa wa"). the migration issue will mean that, with fully open borders between EU member states, when many people from poor states go to richer ones, putting pressure on the richer economies (and that includes employment concerns), then obviously that will be a further source of friction seeing as problems actively stem from the EU as an organisation.

Reply 36

gladders

Original post by sleepysnooze

28 countries trying to find a mutual way to work together based on an original set of institutions established in the Fifties. It's not going to be easy, but for all its faults it works.

The problem is the eternal and understandable tension between making the EU able to react efficiently while ensuring that Member States have control and that there is a democratic basis for the EU's acts. The EU is a slow, inefficient beast because of euroscepticism.

I'm not saying that as a criticism - if we want to remain sovereign but still have access to the Single Market, this is the price we pay. You want it to work better, then More Europe.

"obliged". there's your problem. obligations =/= binding. that was the point I was making.

Um, obligations = binding, actually. The moment we start unilaterally reneging on our commitments is the moment the international community stops taking us seriously.

why is it important? and why do you perceive russia as a threat post-cold war?

Russia's behaviour over the past few years should make this self-evident.

[quote[well to be completely honest with you, the other guy's response to my part of the message here was correct enough - the distinction of "liberal" democracies is a good correction - e.g. ecuador and peru have been to war, and they were technically democracies, but they didn't have a liberal democratic culture. with that being said, europe *does* now have a democratic culture. it's stabilised now and I have no idea why it would suddenly crumble. the former yugoslav republics aren't even members of the EU, or at least most of them aren't. yet they're not fighting any more.

It's been stable for two decades, if that. That's the blink of an eye on the historical scale.

And yet have you noticed who took the lead in dealing with Greece? Germany. The EU was paralysed as the other Member States couldn't agree on what to do. If the EU wasn't there, we'd probably be inventing it about now.

the migration issue will mean that, with fully open borders between EU member states, when many people from poor states go to richer ones, putting pressure on the richer economies (and that includes employment concerns), then obviously that will be a further source of friction seeing as problems actively stem from the EU as an organisation.

Recent events has shown some countries restoring national borders, and as the UK isn't a member of the Schengen Acquis, claims about 'open borders' are not an accurate description of the situation.

Reply 37

sleepysnooze

Original post by gladders

28 countries trying to find a mutual way to work together based on an original set of institutions established in the Fifties. It's not going to be easy, but for all its faults it works.

The problem is the eternal and understandable tension between making the EU able to react efficiently while ensuring that Member States have control and that there is a democratic basis for the EU's acts. The EU is a slow, inefficient beast because of euroscepticism.

]I'm not saying that as a criticism - if we want to remain sovereign but still have access to the Single Market, this is the price we pay. You want it to work better, then More Europe.

the bretton woods institutions at least aren't legally binding - the EU is. the EU is a voluntarily-set surrendering of our national sovereignty. and honestly I would have no clue why the EU would want to exclude us from the terms of trade that we currently have - they would be harming themselves merely as a symbol of offence against us leaving.

Um, obligations = binding, actually. The moment we start unilaterally reneging on our commitments is the moment the international community stops taking us seriously.

nah. you're talking about reputation-based considerations. that's not a matter of being bound by law to follow something - the IR community has no police. regarding reputations, if I ran outside naked tomorrow and everybody judged me negatively for it, does that mean I'm "legally bound" to not do it (assuming the police don't press charges, obviously.)?

Russia's behaviour over the past few years should make this self-evident.

not really - you think they'll attack the UK? I sure don't

It's been stable for two decades, if that. That's the blink of an eye on the historical scale.

the cold war has been over for about that long. so yeah. big coincidence.

and why is that? because there needs to be leadership? why can't there be leadership without a political union? why does there need to be leadership in the first place? if greece ****s up, either they can ask for a loan and get it, or not get it. there would be no reason to give greece a loan if they're only going to misuse the funds.

Recent events has shown some countries restoring national borders, and as the UK isn't a member of the Schengen Acquis, claims about 'open borders' are not an accurate description of the situation.

free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. if you're, again, trying to claim that the UK is exempt from the free movement rule, then I'll ask you what planet you're living on.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 38

Fenneko

Leave.
We need to take back control of our borders.

Reply 39

gladders

Original post by sleepysnooze

the bretton woods institutions at least aren't legally binding - the EU is.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

the EU is a voluntarily-set surrendering of our national sovereignty. and honestly I would have no clue why the EU would want to exclude us from the terms of trade that we currently have - they would be harming themselves merely as a symbol of offence against us leaving.

SNP: "Westminster will let us keep the pound when we have independence, I would have no clue why not, otherwise they would be harming themselves merely as a symbol of offence against us leaving."

The EU can't simply give us everything we want. Its existence depends on it being an exclusive club. They give us special considerations, they are giving us an entirely one-sided deal. Everyone else will want the same treatment, and then the EU collapses.

So, no, they won't. EEA, EU, or nothing.

Yes, but you know what happens to countries that break agreements unilaterally simply because they don't feel like it? Nobody trusts them any more, and nobody will do business with them. In order to replenish international goodwill towards us, we'll have to agree to highly disadvantageous agreements and stick to them.

Is that what you want?

not really - you think they'll attack the UK? I sure don't

Then you're very naive. They don't do it now only because of geographical distance and because they know they will invoke the combined wrath of NATO against them. Our security is through co-operation with our neighbours.

[quote]the cold war has been over for about that long. so yeah. big coincidence.

Quite, and Russia's behaviour is revealing a tendency to revive the Cold War.

Because our economies are integrated and interdependent - not just EU Members, but worldwide. Greece may be small, but its economic burps have ripple effects for its neighbours, and for the world. When your neighbour's house is on fire, you lend them a hose.

And anyway, Germany put terms on Greece for the money that was lent to it, and everyone sulked and called Merkel the new Hitler. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

free movement of people is a core principle of the EU. if you're, again, trying to claim that the UK is exempt from the free movement rule, then I'll ask you what planet you're living on.

Free movement is a Schengen thing, and is an EEA thing more strictly. The UK and Ireland have exempted themselves from the Acquis. Any free movement you enjoy is because the UK has voluntarily lifted its border controls itself. There's nothing to stop us restoring them apart from international ramifications.

What is a core EU thing is the right of any EU citizen to work anywhere in the EU.