Could be argued that the EU would be better off without a trade agreement with the U.K. It has 440 million inhabitants excluding us. If UK goods (and goods are two thirds of what we export over the channel) are made more expensive by tariffs it could stimulate the economies within the EU to produce them instead, there is obviously a big enough market there. And they will need to create jobs to give all those people who can no longer come to the UK to work in Cafe Nero and pick strawberries something to do. Bit more difficult for us to do the same, our market may not be big enough to justify the investment for many products. We could avoid this scenario by devaluing the £, which is happening in an unintentional way now. Size matters in economics, and the EU has the richest internal market there is. For financial services the EU has a huge incentive to develop more their own, especially in the Eurozone. Some of this 'negotiation' has been about 'protecting' the City (though why something that should be the epitome of free market capitalism needs or wants government protection is beyond me, anti competitive hypocrisy) which would clearly not apply if we are not in the EU. If we want to have free trade with the EU the easiest way to do it with no disruption and maintaining a say in standards and regulations that apply is to stay in. Next easiest way is to go for membership of the EEA, where much of the same regulation and costs would apply. The most complicated and time consuming way is to negotiate a separate trade agreement.
Depends on the compromise I suppose, to my mind the Lib Dems should have stood firm on the tuition fees and said they couldn't renege on a Manifesto pledge. But at least a coalition gives a broad consensus. What percent of the electorate voted for A Conservative government this time ? Half of them probably want to leave the EU and hate Cameron. At least if those people could vote ukip and know the vote would count, then perhaps they could get enough seats to actually form a coalition. Instead we have an inter party bunfight.
It'll be some time before I make up my mind but I'm certainly leaning slightly towards staying in. In regards to both the EU and Scotland remember 'the grass is greener on the other side....because it's fertilised with bullsh!t'
Quite right too. Paid holidays, sick days etc. were totally unheard of prior to the EU. Worker's rights? Pffffft. What we need is an unlimited source of cheap and pliant labour driving down wages and working conditions. Just think of the bottom line.
The Scandinavian Countries are very much in Europe Tramore. All are in the EEA and Shengen allowing free trade and of people to move and work. Only Norway and Iceland, with Liechtenstein and Switzerland are not full EU.
There appears to be a lot of speculation going on in this post. I've read comments about free movement around Europe in terms of Visas, trade would fall off, working hours etc. I would hazard a guess that most of these comments are from our younger members who won't remember a Britain before the EU. Back then, we still traveled around Europe. We travel OUTSIDE of Europe now without issue, where's the difference? Trade would not fall off, we are the 5th biggest economy in the world and will continue to trade with Europe and the rest of the world. Working hours will not change without agreement by both parties. Do you not have a contract that states your working hours? I don't know anyone that hasn't. Please, let's put an end to the myths. Earlier, I referred to 'Britain', it'd nice to put the word GREAT in front of that again wouldn't it?
Usually, your PR vote would be for the political party you want to form a government and govern. There will be a government chamber with a number of seats (say, 200) and if your party gets 50% of the vote, you get 100 seats in it. The parties themselves select the people in it and there is no concept of "the constituency". This chamber initiates legislation, debates it and votes on it. There is a second, regional chamber that does have representatives from the constituencies, probably elected at the same time who represent on local needs. It also acts as a check and balance on the government chamber. Legislation the first chamber passes has to get through the second chamber via some mechanism or other. I cannot find scope for a House of Lords in this scenario.
I'll be voting "In" unless I hear better arguments (for either camp) than the ones flying around the media right now. The EU is flawed and needs some revamping, but it's too big a risk to leave.
The thing is, with this you'd have double the size of the current parliament. 650 selected via PR and 650 local. I don't think that the population will be able to accept the additional cost of Government. However, what you are effectively advocating is that the current houses switch. You'll have centrally selected people that you didn't vote for deciding on the law, but who will surely get reselected after each election, with one or two changes based on vote swing affecting he numbers for each party. All PR gives you is a say in where the party lines are redrawn every five years. Then you'll have a body of elected members who act as a check, but who in practice (unlike the Lords today) will most likely always vote along party lines. The second house will either rubber-stamp everything or block everything depending on which of the two main parties hold power, making either themselves or the whole establishment ineffective and unnecessary. Currently we have Elected house passing laws for scrutiny by the Unelected house. The system you advocate above would really switch that, so the Unelected people make the law, and the Elected people act as the check.
Don't think visas were required for entry into european Countries before the EEC was in existence All you needed was a landing craft
It's not back then now though is it? We are now probably the biggest exporter of terrorists in Europe, it's unlikely we would be allowed free movement if we left, you also need a visa now to visit most countries outside the EU. Most of the speculation I've seen is coming from the out camp, because they are just making massive assumptions about trade deals and everything else, why aren't they speaking to the EU about what sort of deal we could expect and let us know?
Sadly, I am not a 'younger' poster. In the old days we travelled around Europe with exchange controls, very few of us lived and worked there. I still need visas to travel to many non EU countries for work (may be easier for tourists) - China, Russia, India, the ESTA for the USA. It's not a big thing, but it's tedious and sometimes costly. And if we wish to restrict immigration a visa system is the only way to do it. It might not result in visa requirements for UK citizens, but it is a handy way of raising revenue so would be tempting for some countries. On trade (we may be the fifth biggest economy but we are 11th in the trade table) I tried to point out above that there are a number of issues at play, depending on what type of trade agreement we want. We will simply not have the expertise and capacity to negotiate 30 plus agreements overnight. If we do vote out I would guess that our withdrawal from the EU will take several years rather than being instantaneous. It's a brand new precedent. Working hours etc may not change, but again as I pointed out above they could. Of course we had rights before the EU, negotiated mainly through a strong Union movement, which doesn't exist now. Your employer can renegotiate your contract, if you don't like the result I suppose you quit, or go through TUPE or something. Actually I bet we would retain most of the EU working regulations. A lot of EU regulations (eg on health and safety, livestock conditions) act as minimum standards, and are much less stringent than the UK ones which we impose on top of them. It's why we don't export any pork but we import loads. I have no interest in this 'Great' stuff (it's not a reference to our qualities anyway, but a description of the islands we live on) or Goldie's 'control our own destiny' - what destiny, do we have a national mission apart from spending more time at the shops? I'd like a vote on that please. Here's a handy guide to some Euro myths with humour, before they get trotted out again. Nice one British press.
I'll add music to the list of natural Irish talents, Finglas. I credit to a large part Irish blood behind on of the greatest musical writing collaborations ever - Lennon/McCartney - and as a Beatles nut, I can pay Ireland no greater compliment! Ireland's part in peacekeeping operations is highly commendable, and having met Nuts, I have absolutely no doubt he is at the forefront of operations. I also understand and respect the historical reasons why Ireland takes a purely peacemaking approach. Germany does too, though for utterly different reasons. Two admirable nations that are trying to use positive actions to be a force for good. However, the fact is that in a world of dictators and despots what are prepared to bomb and poison their own people, and use military force to invade, and commit atrocities in, other nations, force sometimes must be used. Someone has to step up to the plate. Countries like the US, Britain and France have a history of taking military action and sometimes they get it wrong - Korea in the 1950's, Vietnam and the Second Gulf War are examples. But you have to ask also, if not for the US and the UK, who would have liberated Europe in 1944/45? Who would have released those poor souls from the Nazi concentration camps? What would the world have said if these nations stood aside when innocent Muslim civilians were being butchered in Bosnia? Military help had to be given to the government in Afghanistan, in my view, though there will be no quick fix. Sometimes these nations can't win. Intervention in Libya was taken to prevent a bloodbath of innocents. Here was a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. What I'm saying is that the good work that countries like Ireland do, is done on the back of, or in alliance with, Western military powers. An entirely pacifist approach just will not work against tyrants or religious death cults like ISIS. So when you say to Col, look at Ireland - we don't upset people and therefore don't suffer terrorism, and when you say that citizens in neutral countries do not carry responsibilities on their conscience, then I say that, sure, the UK does suffer the risk of terrorism and accept these responsibilities, because someone has to. Someone has to offer the threat of force to the bullies, and occasionally, and with great thought, to use it. Someone has to step up to the plate.
Glad to see the "nothing" claim is out the window. I agree with military force by NATO when a country's sovereign territory has been invaded by another country as was the case in WW2 and with Kuwait. The campaigns in Kuwait, WW2 and Bosnia and Afghanistan as the Yanks were going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for causing 9/11 were 100% justified in my opinion. When Kuwait was liberated, the allies should have finished the job and punished Saddam for his actions by continuing the assault all the way to Baghdad. The allies decided to do it a few years later based on lies that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Yes, he killed many of his own people (thousands in fact) but at least he had control of Iraq and the numbers who have lost their lives since make the numbers he killed look tiny by comparison. Similar could be said of Libya. Today, after the invasion Iraq is simply a mess and Isil have spread the war into Syria. This whole episode was caused by the invasion and when people in Britain complain about the millions of refugees from Syria and Iraq flooding into Europe and using that as part of their justification for leaving the EU, I would say, well, your own country played a major role in creating this crisis in the first place, not the EU. It is my opinion that the international community should not get involved in civil wars. I am delighted to see the British and Americans keeping well away from Syria. Shame Putin decided to get involved. I also think that NATO should have got involved in Ukraine. Although that was technically a civil war, the rebels were obviously been backed by the Russians and Ukraine's sovereign territory was breached by Russia to move military equipment to the rebels. Where were NATO then? Why didn't they stand up to the bullies then? I admire the policeman role Britain plays Goldie when countries are invaded but I disagree with them getting involved in civil wars and regime change. If they do get involved, they have to accept full responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Finally, I would just say, despite our declared neutrality during WW2, don't forget that Thousands of Irishmen volunteered to fight in the British, Australian, New Zealand and American Armies. Many Thousands of them lost their lives.
What did the EEC/EU ever do for us? Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade; structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline; clean beaches and rivers; cleaner air; lead free petrol; restrictions on landfill dumping; a recycling culture; cheaper mobile charges; cheaper air travel; improved consumer protection and food labelling; a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; better product safety; single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; break up of monopolies; Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market; price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone; freedom to travel, live and work across Europe; funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad; access to European health services; labour protection and enhanced social welfare; smoke-free workplaces; equal pay legislation; holiday entitlement; the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; strongest wildlife protection in the world; improved animal welfare in food production; EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; EU representation in international forums; bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO; EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; European arrest warrant; cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital. All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multipolar global future. Simon Sweeney Lecturer in international political economy, University of York
