Talk me out of Brexit. I am ashamed of myself!

[MerryMarigold]

So, all along I have been very against Brexit. To be truthful, I don't know enough about it all, but I felt like it's an isolationist policy, a selfish policy and the political leaders at the forefront (self serving in the extreme) were enough to put me off in a big way. I also have very many friends from Europe.

However, I have recently had pause for thought and wanted to share this with you. Two stories of people 'on the ground' that have made me have a rethink.

a) A good friend of mine who moved here from the Caribbean when he was 15, with his siblings and Mum. His Mum worked here, has an NI number, a pension and an NHS number but relocated back to the Caribbean for retirement. She is now old and needs more help so has come back here, but she can't get residency, despite all her family being here. The Home Office have basically said there one remit is to reduce immigration, so this is why it's so much more problematic than it would be a few years ago.

b) A friend of my Mum's recently died of cancer. She was young. Her Mum lives in Ghana. It was extremely difficult for her to get a visa to come for the funeral. All sorts of hoops needed to be jumped through. I don't know the ins and outs, except that at a very difficult time, her daughter's death and funeral, she had a very hard time making it over here.

So, my thoughts are now that with the influx of European migrants, are we actually becoming more isolationist? Are we so focussed on Europe that we are reducing those coming from other countries who may be in greater need? Is the pressure to reduce immigration so great, that those from Africa/ Asia/ Caribbean are finding it ridiculously difficult? Is a result of being in the EU that we can't offer refuge to Syrians? Would exiting Europe help others in the world have more access to the UK?

I am well aware that if we ever do exit the EU that it is not suddenly going to be easier for the rest of the world to enter the UK, certainly with this government, but the principle is there. That we can be more open if we are less open to Europe. Possibly. Maybe. I don't know.

I don't have time to read every last article on this subject so I was wondering if you can help me feel more positive about staying. I really would prefer to vote to stay, but not if the effect is to close us to everyone except Europe.

Yes leave but here we are discussing whether the UK is being forced into an ever closer union - the UK is not a member of the Euro Area. So that's a straw man. You're now arguing as to whether further integration in the eurozone which the UK is not part of will mean that the EU will be a good union to be in or not! Can't respond on that now because I'm rushing.

And leave I think it's extremely disingenuous to focus all the risk on that potential future - as compared to the major risk of BREXIT. There are risks either side but the analysis has shown that the much bigger risk is to leave.

People don't go NC at the drop of the hat

Well, if MN is anything to go by, they sometimes do. Obviously, in some cases you are right, but often I think a little bit of help, grace and mutual understanding, and this relationship could be rescued.

My original post was in response to people who said EU has no desire for ever closer union. Lots have been saying that on threads I'm afraid. So not disingenuous - straight fact response to those saying EU isn't heading that way. By all means vote to stay in I'm saying to them, but don't say they are not ultimately heading for federalisation in near future.

As to whether we would be dragged in to it - I think I will go on the fact that ECJ is superior to our Courts and the fact that "common market" has turned into everyone being EU citizens with "rights" within 40 years. I will form my own opinion on David Cameron's "deal" on being allowed an emergency brake for a few years on benefits etc

When we've lost control of VAT minimums and benefit entitlements - we've come a long way from a common market.

I'm not trying to change your mind anyway.

I believe more of a risk to stay in and you don't - so I'm happy to leave it there with you.

Then kindly provide an area of policy where integration with the EU to further ever closer Union hasn't happened at an accelerating rate over the last 40 years. :)

I will give you half a mark for defence, however that has clearly been a policy disaster for the UK. As the largest and best equipped Army in Europe we should have been leading policy in this regard, not whingeing on the sidelines as formations such as the Eurocorps were created.

Ever closer Union is no conspiracy theory, it is a treaty obligation and one that is clearly evidenced in every aspect of policy.

As for the fears of the OP regarding our relations with the rest of the world they are well meaning and well founded. Whether in terms of immigration or economics the EU acts in it's own interests which are rarely our interests.

Traditionally we traded with the rest of the world, there are hundreds of years where this was the norm and the status quo. Our great trading cities such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Bristol grew rich and powerful. They have all declined, in some cases into ruin and neglect with our new found reliance on the continent where the South East and London is the logical focus.

As too with the single market, which swallows about 40% of our overseas trade. It is in fact a customs union which imposes tarifs on the rest of the world. A bit like a car boot sale where anyone outside our neighbours has to pay 10% more. Our tarifs therefore are set by the EU in order to protect French farmers or German car makers from worldwide competition.

In the modern world it is an anachronism, a protectionist clique trying to hold back the technological revolution enshrined by ebay and amazon.

Europe's markets are declining, the rest of the world is growing.

Obligation - that is entirely correct. Good post spin.

Would be good if some of the remainers would actually read the five president report. Do some research of their own instead of relying on "emperors clothes style" politics.

"Would be good if certain Brexiters would get their heads around the fact that just because something is written down, it doesn't mean it's going to happen."

Given the power creep of the EU over the last 40 years, their ( EUs) stated intentions, our treaty obligations ( which by the way do rather tend to make written down things happen) and the lack of political will on behalf of our executive to prevent them...

Frankly the ducks are all lined up, nothing favours an optimistic view that the EU has reached the zenith of it's power.

There is a certain inevitability, a salami slicing of power, a creeping inevitableness about it all.

Indeed you can find out what the EU is looking to do by reading their philosophical roots. Habermas is probably the most influential... All very clear cut regarding intentions to form a superstate and the ways they will drag us along whether we like it or not.

I like optimism, can't see any reason for it to reign unfettered in this regard though.

& ?

Nearlyhallokitty It is very clearly understood what ever closer union means in Brussels and elsewhere, as you well know. I happen to live there too. Read Der Spiegel and it is clear, talk to people at the EU and NATO and they are very clear on what it means. Why else was Tusk flagging it up in his recent speech that they needed to out a brake on it as the people weren't on the same page as the elites about it?

OP, the EU is broke (literally), and needs fixing. It doesn't want to be fixed, and only now are they coming to see that there may well be Brexit. Junker has said that the UK will be punished if we vote to leave or remain...with friends like that etc. Why shouldn't we go it alone, many other countries on the planet are not in the EU, and yet they do very well indeed. If you vote to remain you are not voting for the status quo, as there will be rapid change. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

scaryteacher I just posted on the wrong thread to you. How about you explain what you think it means? I bet you spend every day examining the implications of EU policy like I do.. ?

Also, if you live in Brussels, you really think it's a great idea to be thrown on the mercy of the Belgian state?

I took a moment to read the document Leave has posted. It is as I thought about the EMU. So the question is then, does increased monetary union for EU MS states in the eurozone pose a risk to the UK?

To answer - my assessment is that this document is as much about ideas for dealing with the issues that have been caused by the euro as anything else. It proposes a potential roadmap for completing the EMU by 2025. Therefore, if some of the policies proposed by this document were put in place, the euro could become more stable and a better basis for economic growth. Indeed it involves closer integration on control mechanisms for the euro, but that is for those in the euro to decide if they agree or not.

The UK will be able to choose how much of this kind of integration they want. What is now happening with this document is that certain legislative proposals are coming out, the ones that the UK will be involved in are mainly around capital markets (proposals are to do with trying to reduce risks of economic shocks across capital markets, some of the contributors to the economic crisis) - funnily enough run by the UK Commissioner Lord Hill. This is seen as an important way of getting out of the economic crisis/ preventing future economic crises. Others are euro specific.

A major section of the document talks about how to improve democratic accountability, and where the flaws are in the current structure.

The European Heads of States view on the proposals was as follows:

www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/emu-report-2015/
Further to the Five Presidents' report on completing the Economic and Monetary Union requested by the December 2014 European Council, the European Council confirms its commitment to work towards completing the Economic and Monetary Union, in full respect of the internal market and in an open and transparent manner. It asks the Council to swiftly
examine the proposals put forward by the Commission as a follow-up to the report. In particular, work should rapidly advance as regards:
a) more effective economic and fiscal governance, to boost competitiveness, convergence and sustainability;
b) the euro area's external representation, to better reflect its weight in the world economy;
c) the Banking Union, to enhance financial stability in the euro area.

The Council will report on the progress achieved by June 2016.
15. The legal, economic and political aspects of the more long-term measures contained in the report need to be further explored. Further to additional work to be undertaken by the Commission and the Council, the European Council will come back to those measures at the latest by the end of 2017.
=> By this they mean that there is no consensus on whether this direction is a good idea, due to opposition in the European Council (note that the Council in this case refers to the Council of Economic Ministers, and the European Council to the Heads of State).

Interesting set of articles here about implications for the UK = The House of Lords examined the proposals:
www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98304826-7b20-43ce-8738-e1814c19312a

So yes, this document entails proposals for further integration. Will all of it happen - only if Member States agree, including the UK and subsequently the Commission makes some proposals, which will be negotiated with the Council and European Parliament. Integration again - can be a good thing and a case can be made on many issues, in fact if some of this is put into place the eurozone might well be a much more stable and better proposition for the UK to be part of.

The point is that it is a clear choice made by our democratically elected governments in EU debates whether they should pursue integration on certain subjects or not, it is not an inevitable consequence for the UK of remaining in the EU.

A thoughtful post kitty, but I disagree.

Giles Merritt, head of the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels said yesterday:

“The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform,” he said.

“They may have to dissolve the EU as it is and try to reinvent it, both in order to bring the Brits back and because they fear that the whole political order will be swept away unless they do,” he said.

Mr Merritt said it is an error to suppose that the EU would carry on as a monolithic bloc able to dictate terms after a Brexit vote. “The British would have pricked the bubble. The Germans are deeply alarmed at how suddenly the mood is shifting everywhere,” he said.

The Pew survey shows that dissatisfaction with the EU has risen to 49pc in Spain and 48pc in Germany, two countries normally seen as pro-European. This is roughly the same as in Britain, though different in character and less intense."

The idea that this is about not liking EU citizens or racism is such a disappointingly ill educated view. (Not to you kitty that comment, but many in the remain camp throw racism accusations around- thinking it makes them sound "liberal" - emperors new clothes politics).

The EU is a project with ever closer union in its treaty and an obligation to that end at its heart.

It won't survive as an entity, irrespective if we are in or out of it - lots of news being suppressed until July regarding how various economies are doing ....

We will better to shape our future as we wish, not attached to an entity which will be careering out of comtrol. Italy Banks most pressing and next - once June 23 out of way.

This is a chance for UK to get the reform for the other countries that they require. It isn't working - except for people that do well out of it personally and banks of course.

Leave I'm trying to work out what the relevance of the Giles Merrit quotes are to what I was saying?

he was talking in the event of a Brexit e.g.

sorry, if confused you - the Giles comments weren't regarding your post.. It was moving on to another issue as to how Brexit is the only way EU will reform and listen to people on the continent.

I only stated I disagree with your interpretations - from experience people that wish to remain have an overly optimistic view of how Commission is run. It is misrepresented in our press here as "proposals" etc but it is the "power of initiative" which is the problem with the Commission.

I think best to say we fundamentally disagree. I'm not attempting to change your view point of how the EU works ie has gone from a common market to where we are today is useful: people will think what they think.

leave well I don't think Giles Merrit believes that the only way to reform the EU is through Brexit..
See here his views on how best to sort out Europe: www.friendsofeurope.org/future-europe/slippery-slope-europes-troubled-future-book/

Also I just saw a fun quote from him that the National Front is making hay out of the Brexit debate..

Also - it is not a misrepresentation to say proposals from the Commission because until it's ok'd by the Council and Parliament it doesn't happen. I would not disagree that the Commission is powerful but I would continue to say that my experience is currently that they only move forward with initiatives that see broad support from Member States.

MN - why was Hover's post deleted? I wasn't in the least bit offended and it was directed at me?

On a separate issue I'm a bit confused. EU discussion seems to churn up a lot of insults along line of racist; bigot and xenophobic. These are considered to be an "ok insult"? Is that correct? Surely these insults question someone's intelligence - so are personal in their nature?

Not an issue for me - im happy for free speech to continue, just not clear why the deleted posts above are considered worse than the everyday insults flying around threads accusing racism. All getting a bit doublespeak.

Yes I think we are robust enough.

Separately, however I am hoping for a MN response as to why accusations of racism are not considered personal on other threads - t gets a bit silly on some threads with bigot this and bigot that.

If MN are going to referee posts - seems a bit of a double standard to worry about two posters who are big enough - and avoid one another's posts
In general ..

MerryMarigold. One rule of thumb I have is if Goldman Sachs is involved - STAY AWAY. They are more than bankers, and for several administrations now GS is embedded in the White House as advisers to the President. No other financial institution has been given that privilege. GS is desperate for us to remain for a few reasons, one of which is TTIP. That is worth a lot to USA. The £ contribution that we make will be sorely missed, especially as the EU are intent on collecting more low producing nations such as Turkey, Albania, the ex-Yugoslav areas.

The EU is the beginning of totalitarianism, slowly slowly catchee monkey. You can glean that from some of Juncker's remarks and also the underhand way in which the public was treated in 73. The EU is no longer a simple trading bloc (when it was EEC) and the longterm intention has always been quite different to that conveyed to the public.

Now, the question is ..... some people don't mind living under a benign totalitarianism as it is today, but some do. Some do not mind losing the distinct national identity that each country has, some do. At some stage in the far future the collection of member countries will no longer retain their names (this may bother some people, but not all), and instead the whole EU territory will be renamed Europa as per the Monnet plan. Some may consider this a big deal, others will not.

Some of Juncker's remarks:

"We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

^"Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty, but would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"
There is a single legal personality for the EU, which is the primacy of European law."^

"When it becomes serious, you have to lie."