Why should we stay/leave the EU?

[OhYouLuckyDuck]

What reasons are there for staying or leaving?
I think I will vote for us to stay as I think it might be a moderating influence on any government wanting to do things to extreme plus we will lose trade with Europe if we leave. I'm undecided though.

Hefzi

I agree. When you look at the nationalities of the migrants many are from the Balkans. Mrs Merkel is supposed to be deporting as many as she can back to countries like Kosovo and Albania, to make room for the Syrians.

People seem to forget that we've signed up to the rules of many international organisations and follow their rules willingly, like, UN, IMO, WHO, ICC, etc etc.

These scare stories about people being required to leave the EU countries they've settled in if we left the EU are just scare-mongering. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes it a 'crime against humanity' to attempt to expel any part of your population. So if any EU country tried to expel Brits post-Brexit it would be in contravention of international law. Yet when Cameron is asked about these sort of possibilities, he just shrugs his shoulders and says 'I don't know'. This is just Project Fear.

Fontella knows exactly what she's talking about, if we don't pull out i think we're in big trouble, yes it will take a while to get back on track but any huge change does, the so called negotiations cameron has, who's to say they won't be changed back once the vote to stay in is achieved and there is nothing you could do about it, listen to fontella i say

What I would like is some concrete answers from the leave side on what exactly would happen post Brexit. What would change short term and long term and what impact would this have on ordinary people's day to day lives. Do they have a plan or model in mind? The only information seems to be in the form of scaremongering from the stay side.

shebird I think it all has to be negotiated, as there's no precedent for this, and afaik, international law doesn't really have any answers - just various hypotheticals. (I'm not a lawyer, though, so happy to be corrected on this - but I know there has been lots of speculation about this in various law articles and blawgs recently) I agree, though - it would be helpful if they lay out what would be their ideal.

Springing is right on the money, though - what won't happen is wholesale expulsion of various EU nationals/British in the EU etc etc

For those interested in the "democratic deficit" (and I am a leave because I believe passionately in democracy - something I believe is severely lacking in EU governance) imo this is still the rebuttal to the classic Majone/Moravcsik argument that such deficit doesn't exist

When David Cameron is preventing the opposing Tory MPs access to government information to support their campaign. WTAF. Sorry but this was meant to be a fair fight. IF there is information the Government has that supports either an In or Out claim than we should as the public be told of this information. If the information is so pertinent that it would sway your decision it shouldn't be blocked.

On the basis of the fact that this is no longer clearly a fair fight why the hell should I even vote Yes.

If the information is so pertinent that it would sway your decision it shouldn't be blocked. >>> In the scenario where the information would fundamentally support the 'No' campaign and could sway your decision than the minsters should have access to it and it should be given to us the voters to weigh it all up and make an informed decision.

@Shebird: the Norway model of trade relationship with EU has been most often suggested, but it's not what most Outers want because most EU residents can go live in Norway if they want (so the "Control of our Borders" box would not be ticked).

I am an In Voter but don't think Out is a disaster... just not a wonderful thing, either. Don't really want negotiations for some new category of relationship to take 7 yrs, either.

So...

We buy more from EU than they buy from us, so trade will continue - they'd be nuts to block us.

The EU's share of what we export is declining - overall the EU is a basketcase - Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, even France. We are selling more to non-EU countries every year, and thiswill increase as Greece etc drags the ship down with it.

We would save money - 8% I think - on food etc - google Professor Minford for unbiased proof.

We would still be in NATO, still share terrorist info worldwide - no change to security despite what the unbiased head of EUROPOL says.

Schools, hospitals, housing - all will be able to plan properly with controlled quality-not-quantity immigration as in Canada/Aus/N Zealand/anywhere sensible. Over 300,000 people a year will need a lot of school places and hospital beds. An Indian doctor has to jump through hoops to get in, whereas Bob the part time scrap metal man with three kids from the EU gets in no questions asked - how is that helping the country?

Cameron's EU child benefits negotiations will save us 30 million A YEAR - we pay 55 million A DAY to be members of the EU - but we get back 20-odd million a day in subsidies. Smoke and mirrors for two-days-worth of membership payments. Pointless waste of effort.

Remember that £1.6 billion bill the EU gave us in 2014 that Cameron said was appalling? We paid it. Quietly.

Turkey may join the EU - it borders Syria, Iraq and Iran, and it's government is completely mental, and getting crazier by the day.

We would make more of our laws here, suited to us, not 27 other countries.
Ever closer union - army, politics, everything. No thanks.

Less red tape for businesses.

Save the fishing industry.

The EU fails its financial audit. Every single year! Do you really trust an organisation that can't get it's books signed off? If it were a company it would be closed down - by law.

We, the UK, have only opposed 55 EU council measures since 1996. Guess how many were overruled? Yep, 55. Our say means nothing. Zilch.

Love europe, hate the EU.

I'm out - unless anyone can convince me otherwise. Don't believe the telly (EU-funded BBC - I'm looking at you), the newspapers, the politicians - get onto the web and read up on this stuff.

Don't really want negotiations for some new category of relationship to take 7 yrs, either.

That's what happens when 28 separate countries are trying to get the best or even different conditions from a trade deal that the EU is making on their behalf.
The UK Govt would be dealing on a one to one basis when making its own trade deals with other countries after leaving the EU. That can be achieved much more quickly.

Level playing field?

I don't think so. Cameron is now holding Cabinet talks and excluding those members of his Cabinet that want Leave. Fair enough, but he also used the Civil Service to cobble together the letter that is supposed to have been drawn up by 38 FTSE companies saying stay in for a 'Safer, stronger, better Europe'. Sounds like a familiar slogan? Hardly surprising. So Cameron is compromising Civil Service neutrality just as he did in the IndyRef - and we tax payers are paying for the privilege!

What I would like is some concrete answers from the leave side on what exactly would happen post Brexit.

If the vote is for LEAVE, Cameron says there will be no 2nd referendum and that the will of the people will be heard. He should then invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty to give notice to the EU that the UK intends to leave.

Both sides then enter into a period of negotiations that will last a maximum of 2 years. During that time the same conditions that currently exist for trade exist will continue to exist until a new deal with the EU is reached. The EU are bound by Treaty to negotiate a deal us. As we buy more from the EU than we sell to them, they will be actively seeking a deal.

If we cannot reach an agreement at some time before the end of those 2 years we can call an end to the negotiations and reclaim our seat on the World Trade Organisation and continue to trade as many of the other countries of the world currently do. Under WTO rules no country is permitted to 'punish' us.

We are then free to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, just like Iceland did with China. Or the deal that Mexico struck to trade freely with the EU (without being forced to permit EU citizens to live in Mexico!).

What would change short term and long term and what impact would this have on ordinary people's day to day lives.

There may be some short-term loss, however many economists say that, if it happens at all, would be temporary. We then have the opportunity to re-establish our fishing industry, use British money to support British industry and provide jobs for British people. We can attract the skilled professionals we need as we would no longer have to give residence to every EU citizen regardless of their skills. We can invite any people we want to come here and help our economy.
Our small businesses would no longer be forced to implement all the directives coming from the EU, some of which are frankly ridiculous.

Do they have a plan or model in mind? The only information seems to be in the form of scaremongering from the stay side.

Different LEAVE groups have different views on what relationship we should have with the EU. Some what the Norway or Swiz model. That would mean paying roughly half what we currently pay in, getting immediate access to the Single Market, following all the EU rules but tolerating uncontrolled mass EU migration. The IN side is quite keen to say we'll be like Norway when in fact we don't have to follow that model - we can create our own.

Some want a more distant relationship like any other country such as Canada or Mexico that has free trade with the EU without any obligation to accept mass migration from the EU.

It's hard to understand why we, as the 5th largest economy in the world is frightened of being a self-governing sovereign country like Australia.

So, Springing: your preferred model is that UK has to negotiate individual treaties with each of the 28 countries. Does that save red tape & bureaucracy?

It's weird how the Outs try to turn this referendum into some kind of Litmus test of Patriotism. Not very British, either. And ignores the British situation with IMF in 1976.

I'm glad we'll have at least 2 yrs notice. I know people who are on EU contracts just less than 2 yrs. So at least they will have secure employment for a while yet, & notice to find new jobs.

Springing
Thank you for the information regarding the notice period, it is things like this the out campaigners discuss. Saying we'll get our sovereignty back is all very noble but I want details. It sounds like it would be in the EUs interests to continue to trade and negotiate a deal. Although prolonged negotiating could be a very damaging and frustrating period in limbo and markets do not like uncertainty.

Do you know if all other laws, rules and regulations continue to apply during the notice period?

*should discuss

From the date notice is given, the effective date of withdrawal is actually the agreed date, or, if arrangements are not agreed, two years.

So if UK was able to agree withdrawal arrangements within six months (highly unlikely) it would be six months. If nothing was agreed, it would become effective after two years.

See para (3)

Withdrawal from the European Union
Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

So, Springing: your preferred model is that UK has to negotiate individual treaties with each of the 28 countries. Does that save red tape & bureaucracy?
No. I didn't say that. It's actually the 30 other countries within the European Economic Area we would be trading with , not the EU. But if we couldn't negotiate a good deal within the prescribed 2 years (about as much chance as hell freezing over) we still have other trading agreements to fall back on such as EFTA.

It's weird how the Outs try to turn this referendum into some kind of Litmus test of Patriotism. Not very British, either

We've managed to avoid this sort of name-calling so far on this thread. I think patriotism is very British. It's Nationalism you need to worry about.

Don't really want negotiations for some new category of relationship to take 7 yrs, either.

I don't think Mrs Merkel will prevent BMW, or Mercedes or VW trading with us for 7 years while she ponders over a trade deal.

Apparently, the figures for migrants and refugees coming from Syria, Libya, Afghanistan etc this year are already ten times greater this year than 20I5. I do not want to be the person that says there isn't room in the inn, but western Europe has finite space, and with more than 100,000 so far..... Surely we have to be a little protective over permitted immigration numbers?

And yes, I understand that Syria is currently hell on earth. But Arab states are not encouraging them to relocate to Riyadh or Dubai... because the vast majority have little in the way of skills or education that makes them welcome immigrants.

Cressetmama

It's actually worse than the BBC are reporting this evening.

Belgium closed its border with France this evening to prevent an influx of Calais migrants when the Calais camp is cleared.

Macedonia closed its border with Greece and thousands are now stranded at the Idomeni border. They cut the fence to gain entry.

Austria has capped the number of asylum applications it will accept each day to 90 and will only allow 3,200 immigrants to pass through Austria each day. Austria has requested a meeting with the Ministers of the Balkan States through which the migrants pass. That meeting will take place tomorrow. The EU has not been invited.

In an attempt to avoid suspension of Schengen it's expected that Greece will become a large detention centre for migrants and could be expelled from Schengen, leaving it with the migrant problem as well as financial problems.

Meanwhile the migrants will continue to arrive . There are reports that 200,00 are waiting in Libya for better weather to make the crossing to Italy.

We are seeing no leadership whatsoever within the EU in this crisis. This organisation which supposedly keeps us "stronger, safer and better" is just a vacuous empty shell.

From The Times ( behind pay wall feb 18th)

"Brexit good for city according to one of City of Londons top Forcasters, Extreme claims Brexit would be a disaster are wide of the mark Capital economics concludes in detailed report.

• "city hurt in short term, but it would not spell disaster".

• " Likely Britain would remain a haven for foreign direct investment flows.

• "British Government would save about 10 billion on contributions to the EU Budget"

_" We expect Brexit would benefit public finances but not to a huge degree"

_ "The fundamentals of the UK economy wil be relatively un moved. "

• "It is highly probably that a favorable agreement would be reached after Brexit as there advantaged for both sides continuing a close commercial arrangement.

• " Even in worst case scenario in which Britain faces Tarfis under "most favored nation" rules, is certainly seen as no disaster.

• "Other factors would be inconvenience rather than major barrier to trade ( rules of origin ect)

-" Fears exporters lfet high and dry - unfounded. Under the Lisbon Treaty a councty leaving the EU has two years to negotiate a withdrawl agrement,

-" contrary to claims from authors and commentators, impact of Brexit on trade would be relatively small.

-" moreover it is certainly possible that leaving the EU would leave the external sector better off in the long run, if Britain could use its new found freedom to negotiate its own trading arrangements"

And Finally!

Europe's importance as a trading power is fading. Capital Notes.

EatenEasterChocsAlready

I realised a long time ago that the EU was probably one of the biggest confidence tricks ever perpetrated on us - pretending to be a free trade organisation while stealthily ensnaring us into political union and trying to convince us that we are too small. or too weak or too insignificant to go it alone.

People are starting to realise that it's an expensive con trick that is destroying the fabric of Britain by stealth.

Twins never mind being closed down- a company's directors would be doing time if their audit trail (or lack thereof) was as bad

lljkk this isn't a Litmus test about patriotism - democracy, maybe: but I don't think anyone has suggested or would suggest it's somehow unpatriotic to vote to stay.

Springing the vote on the Treaty of Rome was before I was born: but I know my DF rejected it at the time because he thought that a pure trade deal wouldn't involve the words "wider and deeper union". At the end of the day, you are perfectly correct- we are still (on our own) the fifth largest world economy: the EU needs us a lot more than we need them, in terms of trade - and as I've said before on these threads, a lot of our "trade" with Europe simply comes via Rotterdam, whilst originating far outside the EU.

The Barcelona Process is a little dead in the water- but frankly, if necessary, I'd take the same trading status as Morocco!

cresset also, the vast majority of people coming from Libya aren't actually Libyan: but the breakdown of the state there has opened up a means for people to get to Europe without scrutiny from the nation state. It's pretty lawless, meaning many of the same groups who have previously controlled the smuggling across the Sahara are still using the same routes - only smuggling people instead of goods. There are some Libyans, of course - but the majority of people coming that route are from sub-Saharan Africa: and virtually none are from the conflict-ridden states, as you might expect.

Instead, there are a lot of Sudanese (but a negligible amount South Sudanese, despite the civil war), a fair few Eritreans (where there is a truly horrific regime), a large number of Ethiopians, as well as a good few Somalis, some (but not many) Kenyans, Tanzanians and Ugandans, and also a lot of Western Africans: including Nigerians (but mainly from Lagos and the coast, not from the Boko Haram controlled areas), Guineans and also apparently some Mauritanians. The Western Saharans are also fleeing an oppressive regime, but again, relatively few of them.

It suits the BBC to pretend that the majority of people in the current influx are fleeing conflict, but that's simply not the truth. The majority of Syrians - the vast majority, in fact - are leaving Turkey (and a few also northern Egypt) so aren't legally refugees, no matter how much one can sympathise with their situation. The majority of the coastal strip in Syria is loyal to Assad (a lot of Alawites in Latakia, for example) yet for some reason, people aren't fleeing there in boats - of course, that interrupts the narrative that the west is being fed, about "everyone" being against Assad: but that's another questions.

The Hungarians - whose second largest city, Hungarian population wise, iirc, is London - are absolutely beside themselves with the numbers attempting to cross: and interestingly, a lot I have spoken to, despite many of them being grateful for being received into homes here in 1956, think Western Europe want their heads looking at for seeking to alter the demographic balance so strikingly.

Still - the referendum isn't only (or even mainly) about immigration: apologies all for the derail!

It shows a shocking lack of knowledge to say this referendum has come about because of immigration. I've been longing for it since Goldsmith's referendum party in the 90s. Half of conservatives are, and have for the last 20 years been, eurosceptics. The previous referendum in the 70s was because of mistrust of losing sovereignty etc.

Just because you know someome personally who is a "racist" or a "bigot" and voting out, that doesn't bear any reflection on others voting out.

I say perhaps choose better friends and also read up some history of the EU opposition over the last 40 years; don't just date EU opposition from the date a racist friend said something to you, or you started reading the news.

The ignorance of history would be tolerable and even understandable - IF they didn't scatter their comments with words such as : xenophobia and bigot etc.

Please take time to educate yourselves, as this is our children's future you are deciding whilst wasting time posturing some superior position over 'bigots'.

Just seen this from and thought worth posting here:

"What did the EU ever do for us?

Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade;
structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline;
clean beaches and rivers;
cleaner air;
lead free petrol;
restrictions on landfill dumping;
a recycling culture;
cheaper mobile charges;
cheaper air travel;
improved consumer protection and food labelling;
a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives;
better product safety;
single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance;
break up of monopolies;
Europe-wide patent and copyright protection;
no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;
price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;
freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;
funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;
access to European health services;
labour protection and enhanced social welfare;
smoke-free workplaces;
equal pay legislation;
holiday entitlement;
the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime;
strongest wildlife protection in the world;
improved animal welfare in food production;
EU-funded research and industrial collaboration;
EU representation in international forums;
bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO;
EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty;
European arrest warrant;
cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence;
European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa;
support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond;
investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.
All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed.
It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980.
Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

LeaveTheRoundabout

I was a member of the Referendum Party that fought the 1997 election to obtain the referendum we are now holding.

My belief in Brexit stems from having read the Treaties. I remember reading Maastricht treaty and seeing page after page of opt out for the French for things such as their banana growing interests in the Caribbean and thinking - this is crazy protectionism!

I think we just have to accept that haters are going to hate, but name-calling does bother me any more. I just pity the moron that thinks it's about xenophobia or racism.

I also get rather annoyed with the Left wing who see the EU as alternative benign Government that will deliver what they've failed to democratically gain via the UK ballot box. They forget that political pendulums can swing from left to right, and governments throughout Europe are changing.

The bottom line is that you cannot continue to have a welfare state and a free NHS that is open to 400,00 million EU citizens and will be open to millions more as the EU empire expands.

You cannot provide, free everything to any EU citizens who comes here to claim it.

You must either chose to LEAVE the EU and preserve the NHS and welfare state or stay IN and watch them collapse under the strain of need it cannot meet.

clean beaches and rivers;

Just off to bed but this tickled me for some reason.

My Uncle has a place on Mallorca and I remember visiting and sitting on the beach with him and his sad wistful face talking about how the EU had made them take away their beach huts due to a meter of sand or something they had one for years along with locals right on the beach, pretty huts, not many, used to dump swimming gear etc and he said - such fun with the grandkids but the EU decided something about them and they had to go......