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.

SpringingintoAction

If we could be certain that everything would largely stay unchanged if we leave then I would agree with you that the choice would come down to whether we prefer to go it alone or stay in with the EU.

However I really think that we cannot make this assumption.

We are the 5th largest economy in the world BUT only 11th in terms of manufacturing; if we all agree that it is not sensible to run the country solely on the basis of London and its position as a leading financial market we should be doing everything to supporting manufacturing and exporting to the EU.

Far from being a good thing that we buy more from the EU than we sell to it - this should be ringing big alarm bells ... we need to produce more and sell more to the EU (all 28 Member States and not just eg Germany) ... strip out of these figures the sales to EU of UK based but German or Japanese owned car producers (producers who might well move of shift production or simply sourcing of components to EU suppliers rather than UK suppliers) and frankly the position becomes even more worrying!

If we really do feel so different that we want to leave ... at all costs. Fine ... but we may then find ourselves even more isolated as Scotland and even Wales move to leave our Union... .

But if we really do feel this strongly and are prepared to accept the above risks ... well then we should leave. But for me this would be wrong on so many levels.

Shebird Many apologies! I am on two EU threads at the same time and my answer to you about EU animal welfare issues was intended for someone else on the other thread! [blush!]

What I meant to say re: increased costs was ...

The core manufacturing standards (safety standards being just a percentage) are broadly the same across the EU currently, but if we were to leave, in order to pursue our own different standards, (ie make our own decisions like everyone wants to) each of these decisions would have a cost for manufacturing. And vice versa should EU rules change.

I know for a fact that many UK businesses are worried - their concern is that even small increases in costs or even risks or uncertainty could be sufficient to persuade their employers (bigger multinationals) to think again about where to invest for the future.

No real concerns about the immediate impact on existing companies ... the costs have been invested ... the issue comes when new investments are needed. It is tough enough right now competing against moves to Poland Czech Rep or even Romania ... .

We should not make it harder for our existing employers to justify keeping production in UK.

I live in Essex. We are now being forced to cover our green and pleasant countryside with housing to create space for new housing. Of course the locals object and point out the roads are overcrowded, the schools are full and we don't have enough GPs to support the new housing.

Much of that housing is needed because of recent imigration from the EU. Do we really sant to turn our countryside into anhousing estate for EU migrants?

Manatee

Your post got me thinking and I need to ponder it some more but briefly ...

TTIP is very controversial in the EU because it is seen as a UK-based free market approach to globalisation. It is an indication of how the UK would likely take advantage of being able to decide for itself ... we open our markets to drive down costs .... at the expense of employment and social rights.

It is an historical anomaly that we and France are on the UN Secutity Council ... it reflects our moral role in the world but not our economic clout and relevance. Without the EU I fear we would be seen not as the 5th largest economy but the 11th largest manufacturing nation.... not big enough to count.

The USA does not want us out of the EU ... for two reasons : first because our membership and special relationship work well for USA; but perhaps also because USA does not want to see one of its long term allies become of marginal importance on the world stage.

Looking at international bodies such as WTO and FAO it is clear that they provide a base level of market access = but not enough to generate real benefits ... which is presumably why the US and ASEAN and China and pretty much everyone recognises the need to greater coordination through bi-lateral trade agreements.

Slimming there is nothing to stop the UK continuing to manufacture to EU standards after leaving the EU and adopting any new standards as they come in. No need for two standards in manufactured goods.

From what I've read and discussed with people, the reasons people want to leave EU are to do with self determination and migration.

AnthonyBlanche

No there is nothing to stop us doing that but there are inevitably costs involved which will ultimately impact on wage costs. If the UK changes its regulation say on heat insulation and plumbing or tyres or bricks and the EU don't or vice versa, then it is obviously more expensive to have to manufacturer two different types of products.

As for self-determination... fine ... the point that I am making that this comes as a potentially high price. The idea that we can have all the benefits we currently enjoy in the EU at the same time as deciding everything for ourselves is just an impossibility.

As for migration - as demonstrated by the Jungle in Calais - migrants have no rights under EU law. The Jungle wouldn't exist if they had the ability to get straight in to the UK.

I don't know how many times I have to re-state this on these threats but migration of immigrants (from outside the EU) does NOT come under the competence of the European Union. This is a national issue only.

The fact that many workers have moved to the UK from other EU countries such as Poland and many other Eastern European nations, and from Spain, Italy France etc is because our economy needs more workers. Not only skilled workers but workers prepared to do jobs which English workers are not prepared to do. In particular, in the agricultural sector in the fens.

ProfessorPrecise - if Essex is under pressure of housing - is this not more to do with the imbalance of the UK economy which depends perilously on the performance of London and the financial services sector leading to property prices in London being unaffordable for most Brits?

I agree with a lot of what you say Slimming however due to Germany's welcome of migrants there is going to be increasing pressure for vast numbers of economic migrants to be shared out amongst all EU countries. In fact I believe this pressure is already being applied.

Also as I said above there is no reason why the UK can't continue to manufacture to EU standards. At the moment we import vastly more from the EU than we export. It wouldn't be on the EUs interest to impose adverse trading conditions as EU countries would lose a lot more than the UK.

Economic arguments aside ( though I'm not saying they're unimportant), I believe those in power should want the best for the citizens. Whether you agree with what the uk politicians do or not, I tend to feel that overall they do have the UK's best interests at heart. Within the EU, I feel the UK is just an irritation who doesn't play ball - and I don't think we should allow that those with that attitude to be ultimately in charge.

The EU at the moment is too big, the member countries have too contrasting needs/interests and I can't see how it is going to work long term.

AnthonyBlanche

Manufacturing costs
[See my post to Springingintoaction at 09:49:45 below]

Also, I think we should be in no doubt, that if we leave, other EU Member States will, over time, adapt manufacturing standards to suit their needs ie the needs of their industries. To continue to export to the EU (and btw it is not necessarily reassuring that we buy more than we can sell!) the economics of manufacturing will force UK industry to follow EU standards and drop any ideas of having alternative UK standards. So we lose both ways.

To do otherwise (as stated previously) ie producing to two different standards will add significant cost, which would I believe ultimately have to be paid for by UK consumers and workers.

Migration
Just to be clear, when you talk about migrants, I understand this to refer to economic or political migrants from outside the EU eg people leaving Syria trying to get to UK countries.

This is totally different from workers in other EU member States (Poland, France, Italy) moving to the UK to work ie exercising their right of free movement as UK citizens can do in many tens of thousands in reverse.

There are, and probably always will be, huge fluctuations in the movements of migrants across the world according to fluctuating economies. By their very nature they are not permanent. I think the Polish government is now offering incentives for its own skilled workers to remain in the country or return from abroad. And do you remember the large number of Brits who moved to the USA and Germany in the late seventies and early eighties ie Auf Wiedersehen, Pet (tv series about migrant Brit construction workers in Dusseldorf) when the UK economy was in a dip?

If we think of refugees/migrants in terms of the humanitarian crisis in Syria, Germany has indeed been very generous to those in real need. However, our UK policy which superficially looks hard hearted, must be the root forward ie resolve the crisis in Syria, ie in Syria itself. To do this, we can use our position inside the EU to develop a more coordinated EU response. It is a prime example of where the UK can really contribute to developing responses on behalf of the EU member states, through cooperation and coordination in an area which is, in strict terms, on the very margins of EU competence (as stated below).

As we all see, even the EU and USA together struggle to resolve this very difficult issue. The UK alone would be a voice in the wilderness (meaning that we might have very good ideas but nobody would be listening).

Sorry, seem to be rather dominating the thread atm, which I don't want to do, so this is my last post of the morning...

... but couldn't resist responding to Twooter

I agree with you that if it is a matter of pure principle, the economic cost should not predominate. However, if in the future, leaving the Europe results in lower social welfare, fewer jobs at lower rates, our dc might well turn around and say, why do we not have the same benefits as everyone else has in the EU?

As to your understanding of the UK's place in Europe, yes, I understand the feeling of many English people that we feel different because we are an island. However the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish would all say that the EU has worked in their favour.

In reality, the EU has also worked hugely in favour of England - our opinions in fact in reality are treated with disproportionate importance within the EU - although of course this is rarely reported in the UK press.

(As an aside, it seems clear this morning that a decision of England to leave the EU will result in Scotland seeking to stay. This does not look to be a sensible outcome for the UK as a whole.)

As stated before, the EU operates very largely under an old English principle of consensus. Issues addressed by the EU are generally those agreed by the individual Member States. And yes, sometimes negotation and consensus and cooperation involves compromise but I think that is justified if it truly benefits the whole.

If we feel like the outsider in Europe it is perhaps because our politicians and press like us to feel that way!

We in the UK have been fully involved and engaged in all the decisions of the EU within the last forty years. Very few EU provisions have been adopted without express UK support. The reality is that if we leave the EU - by definition - all future decisions by the EU will be taken without our input so your concerns in reality seems closer to a description of what would happen if we leave.

Obviously this is catastrophic but why are you blaming the EU for it? We need a more coordinated approach, not less!

Belgium itself is a chaotic mess that is layered with ineffective administration that have language barriers within its own country.

There was no information sharing and no security between states at all, and Paris blew that glaring gap wide open.

Saying we need EU for security you would think people were talking about an impressive crack team that has been proven in action to deter terrorists.

What we have instead is sloppy basic mistakes that never ever should have been allowed to happen.

Terrorists happily using the open borders and total lack of information sharing for their own wicked ends.

The master mind behind Paris boasted of coming and to ing as he pleased inspite of being on wanted lists.

There is NO security!

"There are, and probably always will be, huge fluctuations in the movements of migrants across the world according to fluctuating economies. By their very nature they are not permanent. I think the Polish government is now offering incentives for its own skilled workers to remain in the country or return from abroad. And do you remember the large number of Brits who moved to the USA and Germany in the late seventies and early eighties ie Auf Wiedersehen, Pet (tv series about migrant Brit construction workers in Dusseldorf) when the UK economy was in a dip?"

Preposterous, we cant all just decide to live and work in australia, or canada or the us for a few years!

You have to go through a vigorous system to prove your not taking a job off their citizens.

Which is exactly what our governments should have done for their electorate.

Do you really think there has been a mass exodus to Poland? Really?

There is no doubt that the EU has been beneficial for many countries but it seems that that the UK puts in more than it gets out.

In answer to your responses Amouselivedinawindmill (and then must leave my chair at the computer to do chores)

Security
Sorry not sure I understand what are you proposing? Belgium is an individual Member State. This is a thread about the European Union. You are criticising nations within the EU for not communicating enough. How will Britain going alone help this? Surely we should be joining together and cooperating more?

Migration
Not preposterous!

2.2 million UK citizens currently work in other Member States of the EU.
2.3 millions EU citizens from other Member States working in the UK.

2.2 million UK citizens currently work in other Member States of the EU.

2.3 millions EU citizens from other Member States are currently working in the UK.

I think that Slimming having to work too hard to spin the few benefits the EU gives us as compelling reasons for staying. That makes me think their reasons for staying in the EU are for idealistic, dogmatic political reasons rather than examining the case for or against on the actual facts.

Being the 5th largest economy should give us enormous global clout. We already have the levers to exercise that clout, however our membership of the EU means we cannot utilise them.

The EU is actively diminishing our manufacturing capability. It funded the move of Fird from the UK to Turkey. It attracted Cadbury's to move from the West Country to Poland. It stops us from subsidising our steel industries through its competition laws. It demands that acorn tracts for British infrastructure and publicly funded projects are advertised throughout the EU. We cannot use British money to build British companies to employ British workers. Our unemployed low skilled remain jobless while we import 2 million unskilled Polish workers who can undercut local wages as their families remain in list cost Eastern European homelands.
The EU does not keep us safer. It's failure to grip the migration issue means many if the Paris attacks terrorists were able to come and to Syria and return as fake refugees on fake documentation via the Turkey to Greek crossing and onwards to Paris. After the attacks Schengen permitted them to take refuge in Bekgium where the whole lawlessness of Moelenbeke was revealed to us

Please don't try to pretend we can change the EU from within. Cameron's difficulties in getting them to agree to tinkering with a few benefits shows they are unable and unwilling to reform themselves. There is no hope of UK reforming them from within. We have been outvoted 55 times in the Council of Ministers trying to prevent things we disagree with. The EU will punish us greatly. Cameron signed away our right to have ac2nd referendum should we vote out. I find it sinister that the EU even requested that and that Camerin agreed.

Anyway, we could all write volumes on the question but if you want

1. the UK to make its own laws and for those laws to be supreme in the UK

2. the right to set our own taxes and not have the EU determine what range of VAT or determine which goods it should apply to e g the ta pax tax

3. the right to decide who comes to live in Britain and to decide that based on a system that welcomes skills from people throughout the world, instead of giving the right to settle in the UK to any EU citizen

4. the right to use British tax payers money in a way determined by the UK Parliament following, instead of sending £55million a day to Brussels in the hope they may give us back a bit to spend in things the EU has decided

   Then you must vote LEAVE as we cannot do those things while we remain IN.

I'm voting to stay for three main reasons - I completely agree with the free movement of people; there's safety in numbers and I don't want to be trapped here if everything goes to hell (as this is quite likely under our present government).

Shebird

Banded about in the media today ...

UKIP claim (so bound to be generous estimate) that we put in 9 billion net to the EU

But this does not include the 80 billion we receive through trading in the single market.

All those who go on about laws being made by unelected bureaucrats, what do you think happens in Whitehall? Also, the amount of stuff that is pushed through the statutory instrument route without any parliamentary scrutiny is shocking.

I'm hoping we'll remain for many reasons, but one of them is to protect us from our government's worst ideas.

Our country isn't that small... our population is larger than that of Australia, Canada and Switzerland, all of which do very well by themselves.

But this does not include the 80 billion we receive through trading in the single market.

We can stay in the single market without being a member of the EU.

Sorry, I was thinking of the "common market" which worked well, without needing to join the EU.

I remember life before the EU and Britain was respected and strong.

Springingintoaction

That's unfair. I'm not spinning I'm working hard to address every point here with facts, mainly about business (see below).

You have no idea about my political motivations. I haven't felt it necessary to speculate about anyone's motivations on here. Surely, everyone has a right to their own opinion and has a right to express it on here. There have been some good points made below about the EU, from people who are thinking of leaving, and I have merely responded to these points.

The only reason I am posting frequently is that I seem to be the only one on here responding to the arguments who want to leave. Not many in the stay camp are posting atm.

Factually there are real errors in your post.

Ford is an American company who has moved production from the UK (as well as from Belgium) to cheaper locations elsewhere in the EU and in third countries. This is a decision of Ford USA. It is an example of what UK industry faces on a day to day basis. We have to be competitive. Leaving the EU may well reduce our competitivity.

The rules on EU State Aid are applied across the EU evenly and has impacted on the steel industry Europe-wide but as you will have seen last wk, the EU has started anti-dumping proceedings against alleged unfairly low priced goods from China. If measures are imposed, this will preserve pricing across 28 member states. If we leave the EU, the UK would have to implement its own investigation just to give protection to the UK market, and our steel industry has to export to survive. So unfortunately I think you are wrong on all the points you make. But I doubt this is going to change your mind. If I am allegedly being dogmatic, I don't think I'm the only one!

The terrorist attacks were brought about both by individuals who were home grown (this has occurred in the UK too - remember the Luton bomber?) and illegal immigrants who have travelled across Europe. Obviously this is catastraphobic but why are you blaming the EU for it? We need a more coordinated approach, not less!

The terrorists, were able to flit freely in and out of Europe taking advanatge of the chaos even after the attacks when frances border were supposed to be closed.

we need a more coordinated approach, not less

Can you explain to me, please, how Merkels decision to call out to the world, we can take a million refugees was a co ordinated approach?

Did she un be known to me sit in some council somewhere where we were also present ( UK reps) and discuss this offer to the world?

Did they carefully and with great consideration debate that economic chancers from Mororco, Alergia etc may use this as an excuse to get into Europe?

Did they discuss the Paris/Brussles failings and first, then decide to allow millions of people into Germany which of course means into the EU?

Maybe I missed all the above because as far as I am aware, without even consulting her own government, under pressure from the socialists, she made this declaration which has affected us all.

"In a strongly worded statement released minutes after an emergency Cabinet meeting, Mr Gove warned that the EU’s policies were allowing terrorists to roam freely on the Continent, fuelling the rise of neo-Nazi parties and opening up historic tensions between rival European powers"

^ This is the reality of whats happening right now, this is the reality.

There is no control, there is no sharing of information its utter chaos.

Its dangerous, its scary and no one has any control over it.

All those who go on about laws being made by unelected bureaucrats, what do you think happens in Whitehall? Also, the amount of stuff that is pushed through the statutory instrument route without any parliamentary scrutiny is shocking.

Ah yes, so lets add layer upon layer of even further removed, nameless, mandarins and quacks and layers and bureaucracy over seas in mainland Europe, because, because......

that will help Uk citizens target and keep an eye on, the UK'S naughty civil servants.