If there was a referendum on Europe....

Meant to say - whilst there probably is wasted money (surely that is the same in the UK as well ?!), I think the bigger picture is more important. I think that EU cooperation is the biggest single reason there has been no major conflict in Europe since the 1940s. Countries are willingly trying to work together, and talking together. If you are doing that you are less likely to start invading or shooting at each other.

Definitely in.
NiceGuy is talking a lot of sense - this country will now get into more economic trouble due simply to the threat of leaving.
Once this country is out of the EU look forward to ALL employment rights disappearing - the Government is far from being a fan of discrimination law, minimum holiday rights, etc.

I hope it would be stay in (and be proactive) but fear it would be very xenophobic and end up leaving. I think it is a bad idea to have a referendum - most people would be voting on something they know very little about - just the years of negative hype.

Definitely in. For social reasons, movement, trade, and a million other things. But also, if Cameron carries on the way he is riding rough-shod over the vulnerable, and selling off the country piece-meal to his friends, for the European Court of Human Rights...we're going to need it. That's why he wants to come out, to remove the only recourse for people who are finding it increasingly difficult and impossibly expensive to achieve justice in the British Legal System....

somebloke - I'm sorry, but you're wrong, at least in relation to my patch of environmental and product regulation.

What that column you linked says is that a recent EFTA report found that 90 percent of the laws of the single market are in policy areas also covered by the UN or other international bodies. This does not mean they are "really passed down from" other international bodies.

I have tried to find that EFTA report and have failed to do so - I only find other columns and something from an anti-EU website. But even taking this at face value, yeah sure they may be in the same "policy area". But UN conventions usually don't have legally binding force in the same way as EU regulations.

Take one of my areas of legal expertise - product regulations. This is a "policy area" heavily covered by the UN, WTO and other international bodies. But it's at the EU level that regulations actually have binding force if you want to sell products in the EU, and that's the level at which the UK currently has an enormous amount of policy influence.

I can't think of a single regulation I work with daily that is "really passed down from" an international body. In fact, often when international bodies draw up conventions (a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases springs to mind) they use EU legislation (the EU ETS Directive and others) as a basis. It's often the policy work done at the EU level that is used to drive international negotiations, certainly in the areas of environmental and trade.

Your blanket statement about EU laws having "legal primacy" over the laws of the UK. Some EU legislation - like regulations - do have direct effect in the UK. This means they set a minimum standard that must be followed. In most cases, the UK in fact has more stringent regulations already in force. Regulations tend to be about standards that must be met to sell products in the EU - for instance, the percentage of allowable lead in a piece of electronic equipment in order for it to be legal to sell to consumers. This is set at the EU level - there is no international law regulating lead levels. The vast majority of significant EU legislation is passed as directives which do not have direct effect in the UK or any member state but are voted on and amended by MEPs. They have to be transposed as member states see fit - so there are certain allowable derogations, often fought for by MEPs and Commission representatives from countries with particular interests, and countries can implement the minimum standards or increase them, as the UK often does. In addition their enforcement is decided on a country by country basis.

SomeBloke if you want to trade with the EU in anything controlled - like food - the third country generally has to meet EU rules for production otherwise its not allowed in.

But I agree that if the UK pulled out, UK Gov will drop all sorts of EU derived legislation. So even if there are bi-laterial treatied like Norway's and Switzerland, UK Gov may well either drop out of the regulatory monirting approval etc needed to meet them, or start charging it at cost. Which will make it harder for businesses.

monica - Reagarding employment prospects for UK politicians in the EU, you say "UK in the EU then they will have a cushy well paid (and unelected) job in the EU at the end of it". There are very few unelected Eu jobs, especially ones that would be given to former UK prime ministers! The only unelected high level EU post that is currently held by a UK citizen is Commissioner Ashton's post.

Regarding the comment that "We put far more into the EU than we get out" - the UK is only the 6th biggest net contributor, and much of the money that we contribute goes into programmes that directly benefit the UK: blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/the-uk-and-the-eu-budget-the-facts/ Membership only costs each taxpayer around ?115 per year, which is less than £100!

You also say that the EU "allows companies to legally evade UK tax while making lots of money out of the public". This is simply not true. Companies are able to evade UK tax because the UK lets them. The EU is actually trying to create a common corporate tax base precisely to stop companies being able to shop around and evade taxation. And one of the big tax havens for UK companies is part of the UK - the Channel Islands....

On the issue of red tape and complex regulations. This is actually beneficial to big business because it gives them a comparative advantage over small businesses, as they can afford to have massive legal and compliance departments, and also have big enough workforces to be able to ride out stuff like maternity leave, working hours regs etc etc.

In fact though this business of having to obey EU regulations even if we're out is a bit misleading. As the article below explains, most "EU" regulations are really passed down from other international bodies, on which the UK is only represented through the EU, whereas as country such as Norway is represented in its own right.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/9813101/Norways-fax-democracy-is-nothing-for-Britain-to-fear.html

So there is a sense in which Norway has even more say in "EU" regulations.

Since the EU has legal primacy over the laws of the UK, we have to obey all the regulations. Norway however, as a sovereign country, can reject them if they are not in their national interest.

For everyone talking about Ireland voting no on Lisbon - that was due to pro-life fears that Lisbon would require abortion to be legal when the mother's life was a risk. Ireland also has endless referendums so there is huge appathy towards them from most if the population.

While wrong to ignore it, it was more wrong that Lisbon was not explained by the Government first time round - which is excatly what I fear would happen in the UK.

Exactly Xiaoxiong.

Those who are saying we should leave because freed of EU regulations we'd be more competitive are living in a fantasy world.

We'd still have to produce goods/services to EU standards and as we've mentioned if we stay in the EU single market but not in the inner circle we cannot influence the rules we must then meet. Crazy

If we left altogether we'd have to negotiate bilateral trade agreements anyway and how can they be better than the terms we have now when we're in the club and have FREE trade rights!?!?!

Sure we pay a few billion each year as membership dues to be in the EU but in terms of overall government spending and more importantly in terms of overall trade it's a mere drop in the ocean.

What about big manufacturers such as Nissan or Honda? They set up in the UK so they can sell cars in Europe to avoid import duties. If we're not part of Europe they'll probably move their production to Poland or another low cost EU country.

The potential impact is simply MASSIVE and the case for leaving is based all on assumptions and little hard facts.

We should pull out and I think most people would vote that way. Nobody in this country agreed to be in the EU (not even in the 1970s, that referendum was for something completely different, not the current EU). We put far more into the EU than we get out, and far from guaranteeing jobs in the UK the EU actually undermines employment and allows companies to legally evade UK tax while making lots of money out of the public.

But most importantly we should pull out because of the attitudes and beliefs of the people running the EU. Our politicians are doing everything in their power to refuse the UK public in having any say in this (Cameron promises a referendum for 2017 when he knows he will no longer be in power). Look at what happened in Ireland. They had a referendum and the public voted no. So they just had another referendum, and would have kept doing so until they got the answer they wanted. Our politicians refuse to have any debate on this because they know if they keep the UK in the EU then they will have a cushy well paid (and unelected) job in the EU at the end of it. Tony Blair is already trying to make himself Supreme Euro-Overlord.

The EU has always been about political union, don't believe otherwise. That is their long term objective. They simply do not care whether you are for or against it - your opinions do not matter. These are the same people who say we are entering the "post-democratic era". Even if you are in favour of a united Europe, you need to have serious concerns about the people pushing us towards it.

Foolish to leave. Madness.

I just wanted to chip in on two things here - the first is someone upthread asked what industries would be affected by a withdrawal from the EU.

I'm a lawyer advising on corporate, environmental and product regulation laws. These things are harmonised across the EU because most regulation is only of any use if neighboring countries align their requirements together. It's no good cracking down on air emissions here if you can move just across the border and emit huge amounts of nasties into the air that drift across, or waste if you can just truck across the border and dump shit into the river that goes back into your country. We in the UK are actually leaders in trying to pressure other countries to tighten most types of regulations - if we left we would be subject to whatever our neighbours decided to do, and merely being an island will not insulate us from that.

In addition I spend a lot of my time advising companies from non-EU jurisdictions, including countries like Norway, how they can comply with EU laws, which they have absolutely no control over but have to comply with anyway if they want access to the market. As you can imagine this costs them a huge amount of money and they have no say in the content of those regulations but have to follow them anyway if they want access to the market. Again the UK currently takes a leadership role in drawing up these regulations but if we withdrew from the EU we would be subject to all the regulations but would have no say in their reasonableness, scope and effect on our own industries. As the vast majority of our trade is with the EU and many multinationals manage their regulatory compliance work in the UK, leaving the EU would be a hammer blow as we would continue to have to comply but would have absolutely no influence over what our regulatory obligations are. This will massively increase costs for UK businesses, UK-based importers and and drive multinationals elsewhere.

Finally, I would note that having lived in the UK since 1999 as a non-EU citizen and then becoming a British citizen, it has massively increased my personal options and flexibility in terms of jobs. I was offered a secondment to Frankfurt last year - had to turn it down because of my visa. When I was thinking about taking a sabbatical I couldn't stay out of the country for more than 90 days or I would lose my visa. I wouldn't have been able to retire to France, spend more than a certain number of days in any EU country, and certainly I have not been eligible to claim any benefits except the NHS for which I pay at the highest tax rate (and would be willing to pay more, it's FAB). The equivalent would be the position for any UK citizen living and working in an EU country if we withdrew from the EU.

Whatever the result of a referendum and whatever your opinion of spending plans in Brussels, as far as I am concerned as a lawyer working in this area, the UK has been part of the EU for too long and does far too much trade with other EU member states to disentangle itself. The practical result would be that whether or not on paper we are part of the EU, our companies would have to continue to comply with EU regulation in all these areas but our government would lose any ability to influence or control the future development of these regulations. End result would be loss of influence but with no loss of regulatory compliance burden and therefore massively increased uncertainty and costs for businesses.

I'm not scaremongering Larry. Just trying to point out that we have a lot to potentially lose and not enough people recognise that.

And also that our strategy is flawed.

Labour created a lot of red tape all by themselves. And we would need to keep most EU laws anyway. I think you are overstating the benefits of reduced red tape.

The biggest benefit I can see in removing ourselves from the EU core is to get control back of our borders. But at great cost and risk to business.

Silly, silly people. Do you really think there is going to be a referendum. Of course not. Cameron has moved the goal posts once more (remember his "cast iron guarantee" before he was elected?). He will not be in power in 2017 anyway and by that time innumerable damage will have been done to the UK. None of the parties want to leave the EU and they are damn well not going to let the annoying little plebs voters have a say, as they know best what is right for themselves the country. The Tories and Labour have merged into a Europhilian beast.

Amy,

"well, for a start if they're working then they will be making a contribution to a country"

No, not necessarily. If you are merely displacing a national citizen who is now unemployed, you are making no net contribution to a country. The thousands of EU people from the east doing low level service jobs in the UK are testamant to this. Sure, they are prepared to work for less money and for poorer employment conditions, contributing wonderfully to the upper middle classes having cheaper nannies and meals out. However, they are competitively lowering salaries and conditions for UK nationals to levels below that which is considered decent in a first world country. This kind of immigration is a big factor in the increasingly bimodal wealth distribution in the UK.

The test for employment for a non UK citizen is that they have to be bringing a skill which is not easily available in the UK (for a reasonable cost). I have completed a lot of those applications for people I have employed in the past. This seems quite reasonable to me.

I vote in, but the Commission and Parliment need major reform. And I know this as I work with them.

And anyone who things farmers and fishermen will be better off out of Europe are deluded. We have such massive EU subsidys for them mainly thanks to the French who refuse to revise CAP. UK/England alone won't keep up a similiar level of payments when all other budgets are being hugely squeezed. Farmers vs schools or hopsitals would be an interesting deate!

And we've end up with almost no environemntal legislation, as that is all EU driven.

So you think that before the EU passed numerous laws about recognition of professional qualifications, educational qualifications, the right of family to accompany workers, the right to transfer accumulated healthcare rights, pension etc crossborder, that someone such as a bricklayer could just up sticks and go and work in another country? Wow, you are seriously deluded.

As for your statement, "Why should someone who is able to make no contribution to a country be able to live/work where they want?" - well, for a start if they're working then they will be making a contribution to a country. Secondly, you can move to another country in the EU without working, but you sure as hell won't be able to claim any benefits from that country. If that's the case in the UK, then it is the UK who needs to change their rules. I can safely say from personal experience that in order to claim benefits (healthcare, unemployment benefit, etc) in another EU country you need to have either worked there and therefore contributed to the system or to have been already claiming such benefits in another EU country before you move. You can then transfer your benefit entitlement while you seek work for I think up to 6 or 12 months, during which time the benefit costs are paid by the original country.

In other words, if I claimed income support, unemployment benefit, etc in Poland and then decided to go and seek work in the UK, I could claim my benefits there if I'd been claiming them for at least 6 months in Poland. My benefits could then continue being paid in the UK while I looked for work but the UK would claim the money back from Poland.

What worries me, is the last, er , public vote we had on an important issue resulted in a less than 20% turnout - the public were ill informed, and the whole issue of Police Commissioners passed most people by. Chicken and egg - would more people have turned out IF they had been better informed, or are we more widely completely disinterested and disaffected. ( The last general election was another case in point, less than a 40% turnout - can we be relied upon to vote, and if not will the vaccum be filled by an increase in the % of UKIP/BNP etc votes)

We will all have to be so much better informed for this one, whenever it happens, and not condecended to or have the relevant information dumbed down. Many of us are working for, or have worked for companies/organisations which are dependent on EU trade and markets. I could give many examples about the shocking waste of some public monies in Brussels, so we all acknowledge that there has to be reform and exposure of waste. What will happen to the UK if we leave the EU - we need facts and figures so we can work it out FOR OURSELVES - the article posted upthread about Germany was really interesting reading - we need more of them - they need to be balanced, and we need to hear more from ordinary businesses not just politicians so we all have a clear picture of the implications of staying or going.

Amy,

No, it should be restricted to those who can contribute a skill to a country that the country needs, be it bricklaying or advanced knowledge of quantum physics. Why should someone who is able to make no contribution to a country be able to live/work where they want?

My heart says out. My head says in.

My grandparents were immigrants from Europe to the UK in the '20s so am in no position to complain.. but I feel intra EU immigration is now way out of control, and damaging. I think we get far more of it than other EU countries as everyone learns English at school and coming to the UK is the obvious choice. We get the argument that tighter control would mean UK folks would not be free to go and work abroad so easily. Well I think the balance is wrong there. I think we get far more coming in than going out and the ones going out are either retiring to the sun, and not taking up foreign jobs.. or off further afield...and that we need the tax payments of the in-comers. Well I am sure my local layabout on benefits is just as able to pay tax serving coffee in Starbucks as the Latvian girl currently doing it. I am dreading the next influx of Romanians etc next year.

The issues we have had in my sons school with the numerous Polish who come and soak up TA time because of their lack of English are awful. I do feel my son has had his education adversely affected by this. He does need TA support at school, and has not got it.

This is why my heart says OUT.

HOWEVER. My head says (selfishly) IN because I would very probably lose my job if we were out. I work for a huge well known international company, who would in all likelihood move the HQ out of the UK to France if we were to leave the EU. I am not about to up sticks to France, so I would lose my job, and so would around 400 people I work with. That would be the case with very many companies, and there would be huge job losses. It would cause huge damage to the UK economy, and we would take years and years to get a balance back.

But would it be worth it to take control back and stop the inexorable dilution of british culture, and the drain on services. I do not know.

"Well educated people can nearly always study and work abroad, regardless of being a member of a superstate." - so the freedom to live and work abroad should be restricted to those who have been fortunate enough to afford to be able to go to the UK's most prestigious universities then?

laniekazan - You might want to check your facts before spouting nonsense like "sadly employees do not seem to be recruited on merit". Have you ever sat one of the competitive exams for the EU institutions? A recent one organised for a general graduate-entry profile had 12,287 candidates of which only 76 get through to the reserve list - even getting this far doesn't mean you get a job. You still then have to go through interviews and selection panels. And you need to speak two languages fluently, plus a third before you can be promoted. The whole system has recently been changed, and is very very closely modelled on the UK civil service recruitment system.

So, if this isn't being recruited on merit, I wonder what is?

As for "no one seems to police them" referring to employee benefits and salaries, the EU civil servants' staff regulations are approved and adapted by all 27 EU member states agreeing unanimously. It seems to me that far from no one policing them, there are rather a lot of people policing them. EU civil servants on the whole benefit from very similar conditions to national government civil servants, and in many cases, (like pensions, working hours) national civil servants do better! Take a look here if you want to get your facts straight: ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/sefcovic/headlines/news/2012/05/2012_05_10_epc_en.htm

"As a foreign languages graduate I have been able to fully take advantage of the wonderful opportunities offered to me by the EU, such as studying abroad, living and working abroad, border free travel, cross border shopping - and all of these benefits for me and my family. Membership of the EU goes much further than just agriculture and fisheries...."

Well, that must be lovely for you, however you represent a tiny minority of the UK. I have worked with Americans, Canadians, Hong Kong Chinese, South Africans and Zimbabweans during my career in the City. Again, you are scaremongering. Well educated people can nearly always study and work abroad, regardless of being a member of a superstate. You merely need to meet a slightly (and sensibly) higher yardstick. If you are good enough, most nations will welcome you with open arms.

Anyone who thinks there will really be less red tape outside of the EU is deluded.