There was another good thread about Brexit yesterday …
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3682921-which-aspects-of-being-in-the-EU-do-you-object-to?pg=1
Can I repeat my response from that thread? Here it is ...
I’m surprised to read about people still asking about exactly what laws are affected by the EU.
When the referendum was first proposed, I was pro-remain, but I then found out how the EU has got greedy with respect to controlling our laws.
Pre-referendum, Jeremy Corbyn used to talk of re-nationalising the railways. While broadly agreeing with that, I used to wonder why he was looking at the railways in preference to renationalising the water industry, for example. Then I found out that EU laws restrict the use of public funds for state aid. He could probably get away with renationalising the railways because that would mostly involve not renewing contracts rather than buying the assets back.
Although some think he couldn’t even do that …
www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/renationalise-railways-what-no-one-will-tell-you-we-cant-while-were-eu
I was highly pissed off as I’d been voting Labour for years and was hoping they would renationalise water, gas and electricity.
If we remain and a fair-minded government of the future tried to renationalise the water industry, the EU court of justice could scupper this as EU law is against the use of public funds for this purpose. Whether or not you agree with renationalisation, this is a matter for individual countries, not the EU, whose laws currently take precedence when they conflict with British law.
We should have control over our own waters - the British fishing industry has collapsed due to EU rules, to the detriment of coastal communities. This is a huge matter for those living in those areas and I wouldn’t be aware of it if DH hadn’t lived in such areas as a child.
If the British government tries to sneak in a harmful policy, organisations such as 38 degrees will call it out and the government has to consider the loss of support at the election. EU rules are made with no such consideration. Sadly this has achieved the desire of many politicians - to be able to implement a political agenda with no input from the voting population - in short, to ignore democracy.
Do you remember a few years back when the Conservative government tried to gag organisations such as 38 degrees in the run up to an election? Fortunately there was an outcry and the plans were dropped.
When the EU tried to sign the CETA deal, I was concerned as for months I had been hearing how CETA gave private investors too many rights to challenge matters that were in the public interest but would affect their profits. But suddenly the press were not mentioning that, just stressing how the people of Wallonia were spoiling it for everyone else by resisting CETA. Only they challenged the implementation of CETA - they were the only ones that were given a vote - eventually CETA was implemented.
Here’s an article that looks at the problems with CETA.
www.tjm.org.uk/trade-deals/ceta-the-new-eu-canada-trade-deal
The EU has dragged us into CETA. Those concerned about the NHS being privatised should be more concerned about the EU dragging us into trade deals which threaten the NHS. It’s already done it with CETA.
This link explains it better than I can.
www.patients4nhs.org.uk/the-eu-ftas/
The EU can implement laws that make things harder for British industry. It can do this without our consent and often the British public are unaware of it.
Take the recent plans to tax online companies and use the money to prop up the high street. These plans were shelved because they conflicted with eu law. Personally I thought it was a clumsy idea that needed more thought, but surely that decision should be made by our elected government?
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/online-sales-tax-to-help-save-high-street-falls-foul-of-eu-dvjs8v52k
Did you know that’s why those plans were shelved?
And the government could not bail out British Steel because that fell foul of EU laws about state aid. Again, you may or may not agree with the bailout but that should be the UK’s decision.
The eu’s position on state aid explained here.
www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/-introduction-to-state-aid
A vote to remain is not a vote for things to remain the same but for the continual increase in the gap between rich and poor. Politicians oppose Brexit for the same reason that we haven’t yet had a coherent political strategy to tackle the housing crisis. The political classes are often private landlords and would lose out if large chunks of the population were not trapped into paying extortionate private rents. Similarly, there will be fewer juicy investments if the government is allowed to run the country for the benefit of its people instead of fleecing them with the increasing cost of privately-run utilities.
And we cannot change the EU from within - it took years for David Cameron to tackle the relatively small issue of the tampon tax (actually due to EU sales tax laws - the Government were against it but were required by EU law to collect the tax).
Yet I am told that for holding the above views I am racist and far-right.