Should the UK leave the European Union?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Lucylu » May 20th, 2016, 2:02 pm

Should the UK leave the European Union?

The referendum is in about a month's time. I am torn. On the one hand I feel that the UK is better off building on the good relations forged after the horrors of the 2 world wars of the last century and that it would be a disservice to all the people who lost their lives to step backwards. On the other hand I wonder if times have changed sufficiently so that the UK could confidently be an independent country again, though on the border of the EU.

Politicians are biased and seem to be hedging their bets to save their careers. Even the prime minister is deeply partisan and seems to have asked Barack Obama to state publicly that the UK will be at 'the back of the queue' after leaving the EU.

Some agreements have been made that the unnatural flood of people towards the UK, due to the open borders, will be quieted but I cant ignore the fact that the UK is a small group of islands and that the massive immigration has taken its toll.

The out campaign (BREXIT) makes much of the fact that the UK currently pays £350 million a week to the EU, but in real terms, would we be better off out of the EU? What are the gains of staying in? What would really change if the UK was independent again?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Alec Smart
Posts: 671
Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Alec Smart » May 21st, 2016, 6:48 am

Lucylu wrote:but I cant ignore the fact that the UK is a small group of islands and that the massive immigration has taken its toll.

The senior politicians and business leaders who are telling us that there are benefits to immigration and that the problems of it can be managed don't have to come into contact with the results of it at ground level. The EU only makes sense as a group of partners with similar economic and social environments, once they started admitting the eastern European countries, things were bound to go pear shaped.
Smart by name and Alec by nature.

User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Lucylu » May 21st, 2016, 8:25 am

Alec Smart wrote:The senior politicians and business leaders who are telling us that there are benefits to immigration and that the problems of it can be managed don't have to come into contact with the results of it at ground level. The EU only makes sense as a group of partners with similar economic and social environments, once they started admitting the eastern European countries, things were bound to go pear shaped.
It appears that Michael Gove agrees with you. He highlights how unfair it is for the poorer countries too. Maybe the EU is outdated and a failure, as he says. Confidence in ourselves and positivity is important and British people tend to be cynical as a group. I'm not sure when this started. Perhaps regaining our independence would be a fresh start.

This is an essay by Michael Gove (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) regarding his choice to vote to leave the EU:

"My starting point is simple. I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives, the laws we must all obey and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. If power is to be used wisely, if we are to avoid corruption and complacency in high office, then the public must have the right to change laws and Governments at election time.

But our membership of the European Union prevents us being able to change huge swathes of law and stops us being able to choose who makes critical decisions which affect all our lives. Laws which govern citizens in this country are decided by politicians from other nations who we never elected and can’t throw out. We can take out our anger on elected representatives in Westminster but whoever is in Government in London cannot remove or reduce VAT, cannot support a steel plant through troubled times, cannot build the houses we need where they’re needed and cannot deport all the individuals who shouldn’t be in this country. I believe that needs to change. And I believe that both the lessons of our past and the shape of the future make the case for change compelling.

The ability to choose who governs us, and the freedom to change laws we do not like, were secured for us in the past by radicals and liberals who took power from unaccountable elites and placed it in the hands of the people. As a result of their efforts we developed, and exported to nations like the US, India, Canada and Australia a system of democratic self-government which has brought prosperity and peace to millions.

Our democracy stood the test of time. We showed the world what a free people could achieve if they were allowed to govern themselves.

In Britain we established trial by jury in the modern world, we set up the first free parliament, we ensured no-one could be arbitrarily detained at the behest of the Government, we forced our rulers to recognise they ruled by consent not by right, we led the world in abolishing slavery, we established free education for all, national insurance, the National Health Service and a national broadcaster respected across the world.

By way of contrast, the European Union, despite the undoubted idealism of its founders and the good intentions of so many leaders, has proved a failure on so many fronts. The euro has created economic misery for Europe’s poorest people. European Union regulation has entrenched mass unemployment. EU immigration policies have encouraged people traffickers and brought desperate refugee camps to our borders.

Far from providing security in an uncertain world, the EU’s policies have become a source of instability and insecurity. Razor wire once more criss-crosses the continent, historic tensions between nations such as Greece and Germany have resurfaced in ugly ways and the EU is proving incapable of dealing with the current crises in Libya and Syria. The former head of Interpol says the EU’s internal borders policy is “like hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe” and Scandinavian nations which once prided themselves on their openness are now turning in on themselves. All of these factors, combined with popular anger at the lack of political accountability, has encouraged extremism, to the extent that far-right parties are stronger across the continent than at any time since the 1930s.

The EU is an institution rooted in the past and is proving incapable of reforming to meet the big technological, demographic and economic challenges of our time. It was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and like other institutions which seemed modern then, from tower blocks to telexes, it is now hopelessly out of date. The EU tries to standardise and regulate rather than encourage diversity and innovation. It is an analogue union in a digital age.

The EU is built to keep power and control with the elites rather than the people. Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).

Individually these rules may be comical. Collectively, and there are tens of thousands of them, they are inimical to creativity, growth and progress. Rules like the EU clinical trials directive have slowed down the creation of new drugs to cure terrible diseases and ECJ judgements on data protection issues hobble the growth of internet companies. As a minister I’ve seen hundreds of new EU rules cross my desk, none of which were requested by the UK Parliament, none of which I or any other British politician could alter in any way and none of which made us freer, richer or fairer.



It is hard to overstate the degree to which the EU is a constraint on ministers' ability to do the things they were elected to do, or to use their judgment about the right course of action for the people of this country. I have long had concerns about our membership of the EU but the experience of Government has only deepened my conviction that we need change. Every single day, every single minister is told: 'Yes Minister, I understand, but I'm afraid that's against EU rules'. I know it. My colleagues in government know it. And the British people ought to know it too: your government is not, ultimately, in control in hundreds of areas that matter.

But by leaving the EU we can take control. Indeed we can show the rest of Europe the way to flourish. Instead of grumbling and complaining about the things we can’t change and growing resentful and bitter, we can shape an optimistic, forward-looking and genuinely internationalist alternative to the path the EU is going down. We can show leadership. Like the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back, we can become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.

We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent. We can forge trade deals and partnerships with nations across the globe, helping developing countries to grow and benefiting from faster and better access to new markets.

We are the world’s fifth largest economy, with the best armed forces of any nation, more Nobel Prizes than any European country and more world-leading universities than any European country. Our economy is more dynamic than the Eurozone, we have the most attractive capital city on the globe, the greatest “soft power” and global influence of any state and a leadership role in NATO and the UN. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule? On the contrary, the reason the EU’s bureaucrats oppose us leaving is they fear that our success outside will only underline the scale of their failure.

This chance may never come again in our lifetimes, which is why I will be true to my principles and take the opportunity this referendum provides to leave an EU mired in the past and embrace a better future."


-- Updated May 21st, 2016, 2:14 pm to add the following --

What I don't understand is the GDP comparisons. For instance, if Wikipedia is to be believed as a rough guide, the figures say that the UK is narrowly behind the US at number 1. Wouldn't that mean it is prudent to stay in the EU? Or does that mean that the UK is bolstering the EU economy at the expense of its personal wealth/ growth? Does anyone understand this stuff?! :oops:

And what makes a country a country? If the EU has open borders and free movement of people, internal trade agreements and is centrally governed, how is that different from say the US with its different states. All help appreciated.

National GDPs, 2015[2]
Rank Nation GDP
(in millions $USD)
World[2] 73,170,986

1 United States 17,947,000
European Union 16,220,370
2 China 10,982,829
3 Japan 4,123,258
4 Germany 3,357,614
5 United Kingdom 2,849,345
6 France 2,421,560
7 India 2,090,706
8 Italy 1,815,757
9 Brazil 1,772,589
10 Canada 1,552,386
11 South Korea 1,376,868
12 Russia 1,324,734
13 Australia 1,223,887
14 Spain 1,199,715
15 Mexico 1,144,334
16 Indonesia 858,953
17 Netherlands 738,419
18 Turkey 733,642
19 Switzerland 664,603
20 Saudi Arabia 653,219
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Fredericconteh
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: May 29th, 2016, 8:04 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Fredericconteh » May 29th, 2016, 8:27 pm

I think this should be looked upon in the point of do we wish to remain in a falling EU or remain and try to reform it?

This is a difficult decision but more clear cut if you were to weigh up the arguments. Depending on your political beliefs, there are mainly two benefits for remaining in the EU: 1. Free trade and 2. Free movement of EU citizens.

1. EU as pointed out in the above comments is one of the largest markets in the world. It is the largest free trade market in the world and definitely one in which we should remain trading with. However, leaving wouldn't of course remove any trading between EU members it would just make it more expensive. How expensive is unknown as I cannot read the future, in terms of what type of agreement we could get. However, leaving would (by EU law) leave 2 years for us to negotiate a trade agreement and we would keep our free trade status for that time.

2. Free movement of citizens is beneficial for countries to a degree and migration is certainly a necessity for any developed nation, however, uncontrolled migration can be dangerous. Not only do we have unqualified and unskilled migrants coming in (which has economic and social implications) but we have huge volumes of them coming in as well 830,000 I believe last years figure was. This is adding to our social housing problem and causing strain on our resources in terms of welfare benefits. Maybe, the better option would to be able to control how many and who comes in.

Another problem is the EUrozone countries in the EU. These are the 20 nations whom have adopted the Euro as a common currency. They all have close to recession economies and high unemployment rates with some having youth unemployment rates of 48%. This isn't working and we have to pay from it with bail outs. We ourselves aren't doing too well, with a growth rate of only 0.4% this year. We need to be worried about another recession.

The EU of course also negates our sovereignty, with close to a third of our laws stemming from the European Parlaiment, all of which make business more expensive. They aren't necessarily bad laws but they aren't specific to our needs. The Eu's end goal if you like is to integrate the whole of Europe and they are already talking about implementing their own tax code on all EU citizens and trying to control fiscal policies in EU states, which are currently handled by George Osbourne and our government,. This could have huge implications for us.

There are also many right winged parties becoming more prevalent in Europe, with only last week, a Austrian 'facist' narrowly losing out on the general election by 0.06% and huge movements in Swedan, France and Germany. Maybe, if we don't leave, one of these nations would leave first which could cause huge instability in EU which could effect us big time.

I think, although we could be missing out on the free trade, the savings on members fees, controlling our own laws and immigration policies and leaving first could benefit us not only in the long term but also ultimately could be the safest option. The commonwealth market is projected to become larger than the EU in the next 5 years and EU nations need our trade ( after all we are the 5th largest economy in the world). I think if we left the biggest threat is the des tabling of EU , as many nations would surely push their own referendums but this would benefit us as, not only would we be legally and economically prepared, but it could make our nation seen as a safer option for businesses to operate in rather than a instable EU. This is why I think we should vote leave. I hope this helps.

Blake 789
Posts: 79
Joined: May 27th, 2016, 5:34 am

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Blake 789 » May 31st, 2016, 11:41 am

The main argument against the EU seems to be people don't like foreign immigrants coming over here to work and whatever, as long as they aren't taking my job specifically I'm not really concerned by them.

User avatar
Alec Smart
Posts: 671
Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Alec Smart » May 31st, 2016, 1:08 pm

Blake 789 wrote:The main argument against the EU seems to be people don't like foreign immigrants coming over here to work and whatever, as long as they aren't taking my job specifically I'm not really concerned by them.
They are de-Britishifying the country.
Smart by name and Alec by nature.

YIOSTHEOY
Posts: 383
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by YIOSTHEOY » May 31st, 2016, 5:52 pm

Lucylu wrote:
Alec Smart wrote:The senior politicians and business leaders who are telling us that there are benefits to immigration and that the problems of it can be managed don't have to come into contact with the results of it at ground level. The EU only makes sense as a group of partners with similar economic and social environments, once they started admitting the eastern European countries, things were bound to go pear shaped.
It appears that Michael Gove agrees with you. He highlights how unfair it is for the poorer countries too. Maybe the EU is outdated and a failure, as he says. Confidence in ourselves and positivity is important and British people tend to be cynical as a group. I'm not sure when this started. Perhaps regaining our independence would be a fresh start.

This is an essay by Michael Gove (Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice) regarding his choice to vote to leave the EU:

...

-- Updated May 21st, 2016, 2:14 pm to add the following --

What I don't understand is the GDP comparisons. For instance, if Wikipedia is to be believed as a rough guide, the figures say that the UK is narrowly behind the US at number 1. Wouldn't that mean it is prudent to stay in the EU? Or does that mean that the UK is bolstering the EU economy at the expense of its personal wealth/ growth? Does anyone understand this stuff?! :oops:

And what makes a country a country? If the EU has open borders and free movement of people, internal trade agreements and is centrally governed, how is that different from say the US with its different states. All help appreciated.

National GDPs, 2015[2]
Rank Nation GDP
(in millions $USD)
World[2] 73,170,986

1 United States 17,947,000
European Union 16,220,370
2 China 10,982,829
3 Japan 4,123,258
4 Germany 3,357,614
5 United Kingdom 2,849,345
6 France 2,421,560
7 India 2,090,706
8 Italy 1,815,757
9 Brazil 1,772,589
10 Canada 1,552,386
11 South Korea 1,376,868
12 Russia 1,324,734
13 Australia 1,223,887
14 Spain 1,199,715
15 Mexico 1,144,334
16 Indonesia 858,953
17 Netherlands 738,419
18 Turkey 733,642
19 Switzerland 664,603
20 Saudi Arabia 653,219
The EU is not a nation or a country it is a confederation.

Depending on whom you talk to, the EU is a good idea or a bad idea.

It is a good idea for big business because it makes trafficking in goods and services easier.

It is beneficial to US businesses because it allows them to set up one EU headquarters, say in Ireland or Holland, and then bring goods in through there with tax benefits from Ireland or Holland.

I don't know why Obama stuck his nose into UK business. Obviously the USA did not join the EU therefore Obama is being hypocritical.

AND here in the USA free trade between us and Canada and Mexico is no longer popular anyway.

There is also a lot of anti Mexican hate here at the moment too and it seems to be propelling Trump's entire campaign for POTUS.

So Obama should not be pointing his finger at the UK on this issue at all.

User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Lucylu » May 31st, 2016, 6:29 pm

YIOSTHEOY wrote:The EU is not a nation or a country it is a confederation.
It's confusing to me, given the open borders and the central government. Can you imagine what the US people would do if there were open borders with South America and Canada? I know the EU isn't a country but it seems to be very close.. Another quote from Wiki:

As international law professor Joseph H. H. Weiler (of the Hague Academy and New York University) wrote, "Europe has charted its own brand of constitutional federalism". Jean-Michel Josselin and Alain Marciano see the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg City as being a primary force behind building a federal legal order in the Union with Josselin stating that a "complete shift from a confederation to a federation would have required to straight-forwardly replace the principality of the member states vis-à-vis the Union by that of the European citizens. As a consequence, both confederate and federate features coexist in the judicial landscape".

Rutgers political science professor R. Daniel Kelemen observed: "Those uncomfortable using the 'F' word in the EU context should feel free to refer to it as a quasi-federal or federal-like system. Nevertheless, the EU has the necessary attributes of a federal system. It is striking that while many scholars of the EU continue to resist analyzing it as a federation, most contemporary students of federalism view the EU as a federal system".Thomas Risse and Tanja A. Börzel claim that the "EU only lacks two significant features of a federation. First, the Member States remain the 'masters' of the treaties, i.e., they have the exclusive power to amend or change the constitutive treaties of the EU. Second, the EU lacks a real 'tax and spend' capacity, in other words, there is no fiscal federalism."

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the chairman of the body of experts commissioned to elaborate a constitutional charter for the European Union, was confronted with strong opposition from the United Kingdom towards including the words 'federal' or 'federation' in the European Constitution, and hence replaced the word with either 'Community' or 'Union'.

YIOSTHEOY wrote:It is a good idea for big business because it makes trafficking in goods and services easier.
Just for this reason, it makes me want to vote out. Large corporations become so powerful and take away from our individuality and sense of freedom. If it would be good for small businesses then it might be the best thing in the long run.
Blake 789 wrote:The main argument against the EU seems to be people don't like foreign immigrants coming over here to work and whatever, as long as they aren't taking my job specifically I'm not really concerned by them.


I'm not against immigration. It has been very positive and made the UK people more tolerant and progressive, but I don't see why we cant have some control of our borders and the right to stop someone coming in if they have a bad record. I'm more concerned about the toll on the NHS and education. Will stopping immigrants from claiming benefits for the first 6 months upon arrival make a difference? Wont they just stay with friends/ family?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

YIOSTHEOY
Posts: 383
Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by YIOSTHEOY » May 31st, 2016, 6:33 pm

Small business has always been better for the world than big business.

So I too think you in the UK should vote "out".

:)

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 771
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by The Beast » June 1st, 2016, 9:59 am

In AI research the simpler heuristic is ‘take the best” heuristic. This heuristic is also the most used by regular people. Here the slogans or one phrase proposals is the key for the large amount of people that actually use this heuristic. What is your life about in one sentence? I hate... fill the blank or I love fill the the blank.

User avatar
Mark1955
Posts: 419
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 4:02 am
Favorite Philosopher: David Hume
Location: Nottingham, England.

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Mark1955 » June 1st, 2016, 1:02 pm

I intend to vote to leave.

I don't care about the money, largely because I don't believe any of the numbers are actually meaningful and future predictions are guesses.

I don't care about the immigrants in the sense that while immigration causes problems as well as advantages it's not a big issue.

I shall vote leave because I believe small is more flexible and responsive than big, and the UK is the worlds fifth largest econmy so we're not exactly tiny. I've worked for big companies and they are either like the EU, disorganised incoherent ineffective, the good being hamstrung to pay for the lazy; or they are centralist dictatorships, everyone doing exactly what the leader orders, more effective sometimes but not responsive to local issues or opportunities, and very unpopular with everyone except the very senior clique who give the orders.

There are other reasons, democracy, what will happen when it all falls apart but the one above is the number 1.
If you think you know the answer you probably don't understand the question.

Steve3007
Posts: 4687
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Steve3007 » June 1st, 2016, 2:02 pm

I've decided to vote to stay in.

My decision is based partly on general principles and partly on personal experience. The general principle is that we need, as a globe, to find ways to work together on larger and larger scales if we're going to survive at all. The EU is a long way from being perfect but the only way we can influence it for the better is to stay in it. The Brexiters keep claiming that we will be able to re-negotiate trade deals with EU countries because they need our business and have no choice. But I don't want to have a relationship with other Europeans that is based on threats and blackmail.

The Brexiters claim that we will implement an "Australian style" quota system for immigration from EU countries into the UK. The EU will then presumably reciprocate. I have family who live in France and Germany and I work in a small company that does quite a lot of trade within the EU. All of that is threatened by this. The millions of British people who currently live in other parts of the EU will find themselves living in a place that their country has, whether they intended to or not, become hostile towards. The whole future of the EU project will be hit by a bombshell. With the best will in the world, I don't see my family's friends and neighbours taking kindly to this.

If we vote to leave the EU, as the polls are now suggesting we may well do, I genuinely fear for the future. We can't pull up the anchors and move across the Atlantic. Like it or not, we are part of Europe. I think it would be a good idea to get used to that.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Lucylu » June 1st, 2016, 3:20 pm

The Beast wrote:In AI research the simpler heuristic is ‘take the best” heuristic. This heuristic is also the most used by regular people. Here the slogans or one phrase proposals is the key for the large amount of people that actually use this heuristic. What is your life about in one sentence? I hate... fill the blank or I love fill the the blank.
I love democracy.. and the EU politicians are neither voted for by the people of Britain, nor do we have any power to vote someone out if they do a poor job. That seems a very strange dynamic to work under in modern times.
Mark1955 wrote:I shall vote leave because I believe small is more flexible and responsive than big, and the UK is the worlds fifth largest econmy so we're not exactly tiny. I've worked for big companies and they are either like the EU, disorganised incoherent ineffective, the good being hamstrung to pay for the lazy; or they are centralist dictatorships, everyone doing exactly what the leader orders, more effective sometimes but not responsive to local issues or opportunities, and very unpopular with everyone except the very senior clique who give the orders.
Boris Johnson (Mayor of London, with one eye on the being the future Prime Minister) has made comments regarding the history and story of Europe:

"The whole thing began with the Roman Empire,” he says. “I wrote a book on this subject, and I think it’s probably right. The truth is that the history of the last couple of thousand years has been broadly repeated attempts by various people or institutions – in a Freudian way – to rediscover the lost childhood of Europe, this golden age of peace and prosperity under the Romans, by trying to unify it. Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.

“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods. But fundamentally what it is lacking is the eternal problem, which is that there is no underlying loyalty to the idea of Europe. There is no single authority that anybody respects or understands. That is causing this massive democratic void.”


Perhaps he is right, in that, Europe lacks a central identity (like the US) and so working towards ever closer legal affiliation is bound to cause resistance and conflicts. As there are almost 30 separate countries, and over 20 different first languages in the EU, it is either an amazing cooperation or a very frustrating mess.
Steve3007 wrote: The Brexiters claim that we will implement an "Australian style" quota system for immigration from EU countries into the UK. The EU will then presumably reciprocate. I have family who live in France and Germany and I work in a small company that does quite a lot of trade within the EU. All of that is threatened by this. The millions of British people who currently live in other parts of the EU will find themselves living in a place that their country has, whether they intended to or not, become hostile towards. The whole future of the EU project will be hit by a bombshell. With the best will in the world, I don't see my family's friends and neighbours taking kindly to this.

If we vote to leave the EU, as the polls are now suggesting we may well do, I genuinely fear for the future.
From what I've gathered, if the UK does split from the EU, it will likely take 5-7 years in legal terms to make it a reality anyway. There may well be an initial financial shock, of a decade or so but I cant think of a reason that we cant still trade with Europe. If Germany, France and the UK are 4th, 5th and 6th in the world economies, surely we should have more confidence in ourselves? It would perhaps seem to make more economic sense that Western Europe joined and cut off the rest of the EU but I can't see it happening. Is it post colonial guilt?

I wonder if the idea of the EU was forged by fear in the first place, fear of repeating a war between the western colonial states..but that age has passed now. I would hate to see us make future decisions based on fear also.

Would you be happy, ultimately, for the EU to become one country in the next century or two? Maybe it is the right time to get out and assert our independence, which isn't to say that we still wont be able to have close trade and security relations, as neighbours.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Togo1 » June 2nd, 2016, 8:24 am

There are good arguments on both sides, I think.

However, Michael Gove's speech is not one of them. It's terribly inconsistent. He talks about the ability to elect representatives, but most of the rules he's complaining about are put in place by people who are in fact elected. (MEPs) He ignores the fact that agreements with other countries are necessary whether the EU exists or not, and won't go away if we leave. The UK government can reduce VAT, which is some of the highest in Europe, and raised in the last parliament by his own party. It can support the Steel Industry, just as the Italians are supporting theirs, but his own party's policy is not to do so. And there is no EU rule that restricts the ability to build houses, merely ones that prevent the construction of slums or construction that blocks light or access to neighbours. The big drag there is large construction companies realising that in many cases land is more profitable held for investment than it is built on, but those companies are major donors to his own party. In deportation, he has a point, in that EU rules mandate some kind of trial or hearing before deportation, which his party has launched legal challenges over, seeking to have it simply an administrative decision by the Home Secretary (US equivalent - Secretary of State). However it seems weird to make that a complaint against the EU and then claim to be championing legal freedoms and removing power from elites.

It's also weird to be talking about free education for all when he was the minister attempting to privatise it, and to champion the NHS and the 'national broadcaster' when his party are seeking to privatise large chunks of both. Needless to say, while he's technically correct to say that we could take back money 'we give to the EU..., and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships', the EU has a noticeably better record in investing in science and technology than his own party, and as education minister he was attempting to reduce spending in schools, not increase it.

And the reasons for a lot of this are political. Schools and the NHS are on the hit list because most doctors and teachers don't vote conservative. Nor do Steel Workers. The european conservatives in the European Parliament suffered a huge collapse, losing support to liberal, left radical and far-right groups, and most European countries are more left wing than the UK is.

Basically he's championing typical right-wing values - less regulation, fewer protections for workers, more power to authority bodies like immigration and police.

As I said, there are good arguments for and against. But Michael Gove isn't a good source. He's well known in the UK, but not in a good way.

Blake 789
Posts: 79
Joined: May 27th, 2016, 5:34 am

Re: Should the UK leave the European Union?

Post by Blake 789 » June 2nd, 2016, 9:58 am

Lucylu wrote:

I don't see why we cant have some control of our borders and the right to stop someone coming in if they have a bad record.
I'm sure we can do can that while remaining part of the club we just have engage in a little negotiation. In general the positives will outweigh the negatives given the economic advantages to free unrestricted trade and movement of labour.

I'm more concerned about the toll on the NHS and education. [/quote]

Well immigrants pay tax which then will fund the NHS and studies have shown that schools with high level of immigrants perform better than schools of largely homogeneous native British.

Will stopping immigrants from claiming benefits for the first 6 months upon arrival make a difference? Wont they just stay with friends/ family?
No-onereally comes to Britain with welfare benefits in mind they come here to work and by so doing they pay tax which then goes into the benefit and welfare system.

Post Reply