The EU. In or out?

'They are an island, and incresingly mistrusted economically.'

The big boys, the bankers and corporates are squeezing them and sometimes fining them in order to get their way. The Swiss probably have bankers just like ours and even puppets just like ours, but because of their unique democracy they have so far not gained the upper hand. The Swiss people are still in charge.

But, ContinentalKat, the Swiss are rich per capita and they want to keep it that way because they care about their own people. They don't want to make it easy for international, globalised companies to replace Swiss staff with staff from offices abroad. So they put checks and hurdles in the way of the globalised corporations and make them provide paperwork and guarantee rent payments ec so that the Swiss citizen is not saddled with the bill.

"every move to Switzerland required an enormous amount of paperwork, work permits, residency permits, the company giving guarantees for people's rent etc. etc."

The Swiss do not believe in a free-for-all, open border, corporate, globalised paradise. They believe in protecting Swiss workers.

And one of the reasons why is the unique, fantastic real democracy they have, and which we don't have, which includes referenda. The Swiss make sure that the people decide, not the puppets and elites at the beck and call of business.

lljkk When in Switzerland I worked for a global company with outlets all over the world and frequent movement of people worldwide. Switzerland was officially part of the company's Euro zone, but whereas products, procedures and equipment were approved once for all of Europe, everything had to be retested and re approved for CH because they did not follow European standards.

People would move around all over Europe and progress in their careers, but every move to Switzerland required an enormous amount of paperwork, work permits, residency permits, the company giving guarantees for people's rent etc. etc.

In practice, Switzerland was the curious, odd one out country in the European organisation and practically excluded from people exchange programs on every level because it was too complicated to organise, so that they only ever happened at the very top level of the organisation.

It was frustrating for me to see the isolation the Swiss manoeuvred themselves into. According to the Swiss that was a small price to pay for their independence. I obviously don't agree.

But back to the OP, In, of course, but can we please sort out immigration by ensuring decent wages and benefits across Europe so we don't all have to migrate.

You should only need to migrate for weather, not for work. It's ridiculous.

Borders don't work.

If you look at the BBC map of Ukraine there are 3 distinct areas, determined by allegiance to Russia and allegiance to Europe. I wonder if it would be worth considering some kind of division.

It's a bit like a custody battle for a child, but bigger.

It's very sad.

I won't be pro EU because although I am against war (which the EU says it has resolved, but which may not be the case in the future), I am also for freedom, liberty and independence, which the EU superstate has reduced.

I think we can have both peace and freedom by being independent, sovereign nations. In fact, freedom depends on self-determination and the right to make and pass and strike down laws.

Yes, Alsace-Lorraine. Beautiful place. Changed hands several times.

That is why what is happening in Ukraine is so dangerous.

All our leaders are united in condemnation of Russia except for some dissent from Eurosceptic voices such as Farage who said
"the EU has blood on its hands over Ukraine" and Le Pen in France and some other Eurosceptics across Europe, and even some members of mainstream parties, but not their leaderships.

Who is right? And who counts and has the real power to change things and resolve things?

ppplease, you are right about the borders being very important and having changed. Germany lost territory after the Second World War, and also after the First world War, and other countries lost territory too.

I don't know enough about it all, but agree it would be good if a historian was to go through it all in a thread.

What is happening in Iraq right now could be partially thought to be about borders and the Franco-British Sykes-Picot lines.

It seems to me that usually everything is stable until the real powers decide that borders will be redrawn. That is when wars start as the earth shake just like in an earthquake, as if someone upsets the tectonic plates.

So when crises occur, then you need to understand geopolitics and power plays to understand why they are happenng and who or what caused them or are behind them.

The EU is like an historical Empire. No small country is in charge of it, and a small country loses its sovereignty to it. So if and when the earth shakes, they can do nothing about it and are dragged along with it, to join in whatever the leaders have decided for it.

That is all about sovereignty and independence and that is what most Eurosceptic parties are concerned about, because they know that we are not in Fukuyama's "End of History", and that "those who don't know history, are doomed t repeat it".

I don't know enough about history, and nor do most of the voting public unfortunately.

Instead of debating the merits of in or out (which I am frankly sick of).. .I would love to start & read a thread solely about what it would (will?) be like when the UK leaves. How will the UK renegotiate it's trading-with-EU status? What will the terms & costs be? The Euro-skeptics talk about taking control of own borders, but Norway-Switzerland have also signed up for free movement of labour. So what are the ideas about how UK could have free labour to advantage of UK citizens but not allow in the unwanted Riffraff?

I'm too lazy to wade thru all the arguments any more, just concerned to be mentally prepared for practical details.

ContinentalKat said that living in Switzerland & dealing with the EU was a faff. I'd like to hear more about the faff.

I find it all so confusing. I grew up thinking countries were countries and ever thus, but in fact, a lot of, or most, have been changing borders since the beginning of time it seems.
Only last month did I learn that even Germany has altered borders. And I am older than I should be to learn that.

Perhaps you could start a thread claig on countries changed borders over the last century or two?
I would have thought that that would make for an interesting thread.

Or one of the reasons.

"The South Caucasus states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia have been the site of much instability since the 1990s. Their EU membership would be conditional on the political assessment by the European Council about whether they are considered European. Nevertheless, all three states have been admitted as full members into the Council of Europe (like Cyprus) after a similar assessment process. Before the first official visit of external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner to the three Caucasus states, it was stated that if she were asked about enlargement, she would not rule it out.[173] It is unclear as to when they may move towards membership, even though they are part of the European Neighbourhood Policy and are often referred to as part of "a wider Europe". Since their only land contact with European states is through Russia and Turkey, it is possible that they would only join after Turkey did so."

Wow. That could be why Turkey joining is seen as important by the United States.

Yes, that is what the people think, but not what our great and good think.
You have to understand the purpose of the EU and whom it really serves.

"The European Parliament passed a resolution in 2014 stating that "in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, as well as any other European country, have a European perspective and can apply for EU membership in compliance with the principles of democracy, respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights, minority rights and ensuring the rule of rights."

...

"Georgia's former President Mikheil Saakashvili has expressed a desire for Georgia to join the EU. This view has been explicitly expressed on several occasions as links to the United States, EU and NATO have been strengthened in an attempt to move away from the Russian sphere of influence"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Azerbaijan

This may be the wrong thing to say, but I sort of consider Europe as only going over so far Eastward iyswim.

"The one big thing in its favour has been peace.
There has been peace since we have been in.

The alternative of non peace makes me shudder."

WetAugust said
"The EU will drag us into a war. They are meddling in the Ukraine crisis, which is antagonsing Russia."

and one of our leading politicians said
"the EU has blood on its hands over Ukraine"

The EU is an empire and us citizens have no real say in changing what it chooses to do.

An individual country would never dare risk war with Russia, but leaders of an Empire might.

"Our own parliament is hardly the bastion of efficient government. But the way I look at it is that few of us bother to vote at EU elections. So how can we then complain that the EU is unaccountable!?!?!"

But that is why we can vote to change it and kick out inefficeint or expense cheating MPs. We, the people, are sovereign and we can make change. But in the EU we, the people, can't make change. We don't bother to vote at EU elections because there is no point. There is nothing they can do. Apart from Farage, the MEPs are so unimportant that they rarely if ever appear on Newsnight, because even Paxman probably doesn't know who they are.

"So how can we then complain that the EU is unaccountable"

It is the other way round. We don't vote because it s unaaconable. It's not a real democracy. Even Cameron says things such as some of the appointments are stitch-ups.

Tp me it may come down to cost of EU versus peace.
And I would have to choose peace.

Out. But I have always been willing to be swayed on this.
I would listen very carefully to both sides.

The one big thing in its favour has been peace.
There has been peace since we have been in.

The alternative of non peace makes me shudder.

So as you can see, I am by no means settled on this question.

I'm still in favour of staying 'in' but I do think we need to decide what we want for the long term future of the UK.

The world is changing and in fifty years time it will look very different. Countries like China, Brazil, India will be world players and with their population sizes and natural resources they will have a lot of economic clout.

Against that the UK if stood alone will be a unimportant little island still talking about the war and the empire.

Being in the EU gives us collective economic and political clout. But it does mean we will have to compromise on some things we don't like for the greater good.

I mean look at it another way. I bet there are laws set at Westminster that say.....Northern Ireland doesn't like. Or even Manchester.

Yes there are regulations which we don't like from the EU but how many of those would stop by leaving the EU? Answer: None.

Everyone sensible is still talking about the UK remaining a member of the EEA so we'd still have to implement all the rules. Just not help make any of them.

OK sure, we get to change some laws. Which don't we want? The Human Rights act? Actually I quite like having rights. The principles are great. It's just the way it's being interpreted by lawyers and judges I dislike. All those lawyers will still be here!

Working time directive? Again I quite like the idea that by law my employer can't work me to the bone.

Simply put we can get rid of EU laws but the reality is that they'd be replaced with just tweaked versions. And there's nothing to say the replacement laws would be better! They could be far far worse. RIPA anyone? That is/was an utter shambles.

As for the EU being unaccountable then yes some of the structure is a bit messy. Probably due to the fact there's had to be a lot of political compromises. Our own parliament is hardly the bastion of efficient government. But the way I look at it is that few of us bother to vote at EU elections. So how can we then complain that the EU is unaccountable!?!?!

The common market is an ideology, however there is EU legislation to promote this and can be found in Art 101 and 102 of the treaties of the TFEU.

However it is the idea that small and medium firms are able to work across the EU and large firms are prevented from monopolising the market which is one of the fundamental reasons which I believe that we should stay in.

We need to remember that most of the common standards for business are not actually EU legislation but business across europe working towards common standards so they all have wider markets with decent standards. These standards make it easier for small and medium businesses to compete internationally. Large companies have the capacity to adapt to different markets but the common standards allow smaller companies to benefit from the wider market too.