I have no idea which way to vote What difference is it going to make to my life Will my French apples be cheaper I have seen no hard evidence to how we will be better off out or in
Europe is a protectionist trading block with stagnant growth. We need to open ourselves up to the world. The unelected seem more and more intent on expansion and federalism, putting us all into one big melting pot. In that scenario then stronger get weaker and the weaker get stronger, and with all due respect to southern and eastern Europe, we are one of the 3 strongest countries in the EU. We are losing control of the country to European laws. On immigration, we have a history of being one of the most welcoming places on earth for immigrants. What does it tell you about the current situation when normal decent people have genuine fears about control of who we let in. Look at the situation in Cologne and Hamburg recently to see what could happen. That's just off the top of my head. I could go on. But one thing is for sure, sticking with this because the EU is better the devil we know is only going to go one way.
I voted “undecided” but I am more out than in (not that it will make any difference as I won’t be able to vote). Whether or not the EU is democratic, I judge it on its record. On the migrant crisis, it has been a shambles. Schengen says you can live anywhere in the EU and be treated equally with all nationals. So that means that countries can’t actually decide who lives in their own territory. This makes you wonder what the point of countries is, which is presumably how the people who run the EU like it. No point at all. But the EU has proven incapable of controlling its own borders, so now it’s just open house for anyone who wants to come – which is many people. On economic policy, the EU hasn’t turned into an economic powerhouse, but an institution which has been powerless to turn around the economic fortunes of the largest members – France, Spain and Italy. Rampant unemployment, weak economies. The UK has done better because it has managed its own affairs more independently – no Euro, for example. Smaller countries have done better because they bought nothing to the party apart from cheap labour, so they had nothing to lose and everything to gain – Poland, Romania et al. And over the last decades, as EU integration has increased, the gap between poor and rich has grown - certainly within the most developed economies. Now, that may or may not be down to the EU, but the EU certainly hasn’t solved the problem. It seems to me that it is of chief benefit to corporatism and to trade in as much as it favours the people who own trade. This is why Brussels is stuffed with lobbyists and that EU agreements are consistently on the side of the biggest corporatist interests. So if anyone wants to convince me that staying in is better than leaving, they would have to show me how the above points are going to change. At the moment, I see no appetite for Brussels wanting to change anything substantive at all.
My post: It's quite funny the way all people say they are in favour of "change" - politically everybody has to want change, nobody can oppose change. And yet they have only the woolliest idea what change they want, let alone how it would be any improvement on what went before. Sorry I failed to make myself clear. I was not referring narrowly to Mr Cameron's pretend negotiations this month, but to the broad sweep of political debate in all countries at all times. Every party and every candidate in every election has to claim to be in favour of "change", even if they never mention what kind of change it might be. Electorate seem keen to vote for change, regardless if it is for the better or for the worse.
Democracy is a shambles. The essence of democratic institutions is that nothing is cut and dried, and on complex contentious issues there is always a wide range of opinions and interests. There's a shifting pattern of alliances, compromises, postures, and elections lost and won. That is the way democracy works, and with the EU being highly democratic and pluralistic naturally that is the way the EU works. If you don't want a shambles, that means you don't want a democracy but a dictatorship.
Over the past 60 years, European institutions have done remarkably well economically, and Europe has benefited hugely. Why on earth would you imagine Europe would have done better as separate, disunited states? Or are you just looking at a couple of years' statistics, imagining that they could be better, and asserting that they would be better without the EU as a hypothesis based on nothing?
This argument is a version of the "EU is a capitalist plot, so let's oppose it as socialists" idea. No, the EU does not have any policies per se. It is not left wing or right wing - it is a market place. Member states and political parties can bring whatever they want to it. If people choose to vote for left wing, right wing or centrist politicians, that will set the course. Much like the body politic in each democratic country where people can vote in whichever direction they prefer and the governments adopt policies to suit (including policies diametrically opposed to the previous ones, most often). It is completely misconceived to suppose that the EU has some existence independent of its members - the EU is its members. Whatever policies are followed today can be reversed tomorrow, but only if there is a constituency for reversing them.
Anything can be changed. Legislation? Policies? Budgets? Personnel? The mechanisms exist for changing any or all of those things. This only happens if there is a majority in parliament, in council, or in the commission for reversing whatever was previously decided. Just like in every institution. This is the common trope of saying you want "change" but without saying what change it would be, or whether a majority favours it.
You make some excellent points and perhaps you need to join the LEAVE campaign? The UK has certainly been on the opposing side of votes on increasing occasions since 2009 (figures are % in opposition):
Here you go Fin (PS-The Government changed!): So, what does the evidence tell us about a possible marginalisation of the UK in the EU Council? Figure 1 shows the per cent of times each government has been in a losing minority as a proportion of all votes in 2004-09 and 2009-15. Two things are striking: 1) there was a big increase in the level of conflict in the Council between 2004-09 and 2009-15; and 2) the UK government was on the losing side a much higher proportion of times in 2009-15 compared to 2004-09 (2.6% in the former period and 12.3% in latter period). I think if I were a French farmer I would have a very positive view of the EU; this is the spending on agriculture and it uses a massive piece of the cake:
So after WW2 we were happy to join the EU as we were in a decline and now we are back on out feet and benefited from being in the EU we want to find someone else to make money with eg China I hope that if we do leave the EU that we don't return to that decline I would vote yes if that change was for the good but as I'm seeing it no one has any evidence that we are going to be ok going it alone
do wee want to owe china any more dough? yip. sussed it re uk government change. France big country big on agriculture big on getting involved with Europe? who all votes in EU elections? who all feels European? who bothers to get involved or lobby? i dont,
I love your disingenuous debating style! Democracy does not mean, per se, poor government, which is what you are implying. Here is Switzerland we are probably the most democratic country on Earth (though if you want to point me at others, I am all ears) and one of the best run. The EU may be highly democratic as you suggest but the outcomes are often shambolic. In in the case of the migrant crisis, we can see what European solidarity really looks like: "It's your problem mate, you fix it". So it seems that the union is everything sometimes, but suddenly not when you really need it. Schengen is a sacred cow, but there is no will to make it work effectively. So perhaps better off without it.
I haven't implied any such thing. The Common Market, which everyone was happy with, has morphed into the EU and ever closer union. That is what people are unhappy with. Maastricht was in '92, a bit over 20 years ago, not 60. And in any case, I am sure that the EU has been great for many of its members. What I am interested in now is, is it great for Britain in 2016? And I am far from convinced that the answer is yes. You couldn't be a lot more Europhile than me, but Europhile does not mean, ipso facto, pro EU.
