Some commentators say that each period of "stability" lasts about 300 years, on average - thereafter it must change.
"Average" covers a wide range of circumstances in the forms of government and the "top dog" individuals who tend to rise to the top of the pile; many identified above were one offs who survived for short time scales during very turbulent times, far more so than now.
Russia is a fascinating case.

The USA is just over 300 years old, or less if counted from their civil war which was intended to unite the country for the first time.

I think Russia is a fine example. With a good Czar it works, with a bad one it doesn't, without a Czar there will be chaos until they find one. Any Czar is a 50/50 chance of success, no Czar makes it 95/5 against. You can't blame them for picking a Czar by any other name.

Donald the first doesn't inspire an Englishman more than Dave the temporary though.

Andy

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Please provide examples, also the Euro is not the EU.

Where would you start !!

Even if you're pro-Eu , you can't deny its whole organisation and operation is a total shambles. It's too big, too complicated and full of bickering beaurocratics and lawyers.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Interesting language you used there Ted but anyway, I'm honestly not too sure - it's hard to construct a worldview of such things and when you do it's generally coloured by what paper you read. For what it's worth, an institution like the EU is never going to be simple with so many interested parties and 'bickering' as you call it, could also be called debate, which is integral to any democratic process.

From an outside view I still think for all its faults it's better than what we had before it. Free movement, regulation and free trade are things which the UK has benefited from. Besides that, anything to balance and check the power of governments, especially corrupt, inept and malicious ones like we have at the moment, is for me a good thing. Overall I feel that many EU rulings are made for the benefit of its citizens. This is of course why many Tories hate it, not to mention the ECHR, though that I understand that is a totally separate institution though few seem to understand the difference. And while the EU framework obviously needs to be improved, I don't think that it's current shortcomings are cause for scrapping it altogether.

Of course recent events with the ECB, Germany and Greece were pretty dubious and made me rethink my position on things, but this was more neo-liberalism 'socialism' for the rich sort of behaviour than anything else, and that's not going to go away with the EU. In a way it seems to me that the EU and various other things are being blamed for more profound problems that are inseparable from the current global system, first and foremost that power is far too centralised to a self-serving financial class and the level of inequality which follows that model. Anyway!

Incidentally, maybe it's worth mentioning that while the EU is often blamed for loss of sovereignty, which is absurd but a different debate entirely, there is very little said of the forthcoming Transatlantic Free Trade and Investment Partnership, which basically gives corporations unprecedented powers over national governments, but of course when most of the U.K. press is controlled by the like of Murdoch, The Barclay brothers, Desmond and The Rothermears, et al, it's not hard to see why. If anyone wants to read more about it without trawling the web, George Monbiot writing for the Guardian, is about the only journalist I know of who has covered it.

Lastly, if the UK leaves the EU it will probably spell the end of the Union itself. That's a rather depressing and bleak future to consider on top of everything else. It's going to be interesting to see how they word the ballot paper, and how it's portrayed by the corporate media. Even though some sadistic part of me wants to vote to leave just to see it blow up in people's faces, I'll be voting to stay - just.

The Euro is not the EU but it is a very important part of it. As a matter of fact all members of the EU must, in an indeterminate date in the future, adopt the common currency. The sole exceptions are the UK and Denmark which have opt-outs on this matter. These were the two sole countries to learn the lessons of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism fiasco. The EERM was the phase which preceded the introduction of the Euro.

But I can give one example which sumarizes it all. The EU itself. It was politically decided to join the European countries in a much tighter way than the EEC, because many feared that an united Germany would try to make war on its neighbours again. Therefore, politicians devised and created this thing, the EU, as an attempt to intertwin all European countries in such way that it would work as a deterrent to the ideas that many (the most vocals on the subject being Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Mitterrand) feared might, some day in the future, occur in German society once more. But nobody conducted any technical studies about the feasibility of the thing, about the effective feasibility that all these countries joined together. Of course that if it had been studied properly the EU wouldn't had existed. Then, to add injury to insult, the enlargement to the east without regard to the differences between countries, peoples and societies. It was just decided that they could join and lets move forward.

So, I repeat myself. The utter disregard for reality and science is not something which occurs exceptionally in the EU. It's its basis. Its creation was politically decided without any sort of feasibility studies supporting the political decision and the EU has moved by political decision ever since.



Well, it depends from where you see it. I, for one, have always seen the implosion of the EU as a certainty. Not a matter of if but of when. From where I see it, the sooner, the better. As time passes more ressentment is created and the probabilities to salvage from the rumble, at least a little something resembling the former EEC, are reduced proportionally.

Bar talk
 

There is a far better standard of discourse in this thread then has been taking place at the other end of the HUBB pub bar - the climate change cult club.

It is possible, perhaps probable, that the EU is going to implode in any case; as was said a while ago in this thread.
Increasingly, it is more a case of "when" rather than "if".
No particular government wants to be associated with the idea that they brought down the EU if only because it is not good for the future careers of those politicians when they join big business (take a look at who Brown and Darling work for nowadays).

It follows the the current UK government wants this referendum out of the way before the real world tsunami rolls over Europe. Combine that with the potential for a collapse of a large bank - see Deutsche bank for one candidate - and the referendum becomes somewhat academic.

Globalisation
 

There is, also, the level of "government" that comes from the UN, via international treaties (which are, therefore, considered to be binding on national governments) and other agreements that are non-binding.

No one from the general population votes these people into their posts and votes them out again.
Today, both the UK and Sweden say that a certain UN proclamation has no validity; next week, on a different matter, the message will be the opposite.

Sorry flagging that for hyperbole!

Your logic is faulty. Ideas drive the creation of things and the practicalities are are working process. Complex institutions or political structures don't fall out of the sky intact, things like United States, The Soviet Union, even the Nation State itself evolve over time through conflict. As a secondary note, by which 'reality' and what scientific papers specifically where 'utterly' disregarded and by whom? What science are you referring to in general?



Not biased then? Either way, faulty logic here too. One day the USA, even the idea of the nation states itself will disappear and be replaced by something else, I don't see how this contributes to the debate or how it would convince anyone the EU is workable or unworkable in the present or immediate future.

Well, Napoleon also had ideas. If they were feasible or not... well, I think history already answered that.

I'm not biased against the EU. As a matter of fact I would like it to indeed work as envisaged. However that's not the reality and could never be the reality for it was utopic. As reality trumps personal beliefs I stick to reality and adjust my positioning according to reality. My personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Corpus Juris
 

Looking around the internet for more information about the aspect of UK versus continental law, I came upon this article.
2016 – 006 EU replacing English Common Law with repressive Corpus Juris | The Euro Probe

The law in the USA is broadly based on the same principles as the UK, unsurprisingly, being traced back to Magna Carta.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Well 'if' the UK leaves the EU other states may follow.

Unfortunately, the scaremongering, lousy debates and lack of global vision is shockingly bad in the socialist element of politics.

Glad they're not in Government either as we (the electorate) wouldn't have been given the option if Labour were in office.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

I have been pondering on that aspect recently; it's an interesting possibility.


Yes, many of the politicos show their true colours and it is not pretty.
A number of them struggle to pull together a coherent set of sentences - perhaps they are used to dealing in sound bites and not being challenged with the difficult questions?
I was quite impressed with Kate Hoey just the other day when she spoke up in a TV interview; she does seem to hold firm views that have not wavered even when a certain Mr Blair tried to pressure her all those years ago.

I'm hearing from other forums Kate Hoey is proving rather controversial, which isn't a bad thing.

The EU has changed far beyond its fundamental origin, and other EU countries are monitoring how the UK negotiations & referendum goes. I'd rather the UK be the EU bad boy than remain in the current status quo.

It maybe classed as a blueprint for others, or not..


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

I even risk to say that if UK voters vote in favour of Brexit the whole thing falls apart and it spells the end of the European Union. It is, as a matter of fact, the reason why I would like the Brexit camp to win the referendum.

See how Poland is getting so cosy with Britain's government's positions. It's an indicator of what you said, earlorange. I don't doubt for a second that the other three Visegrad countries will follow suit if they feel the need to spell it openly instead of just reaping the fruits sewn by Poland without the need to do anything.

On another note, see how the new Portuguese PM blackmailed (news about this in a Spanish newspaper citing the director of the Centre for European Reform) the European Commission to accept the State Budget or else Portugal would veto the agreement between the EU and the UK. Does this show a strong, coese, union? Or, as predictable, does it show a disfunctional thing in which each constituent part is defending its objectives and goals?

Poland have 1 million of its citizens in the UK, they know compromise rather than being difficult will only be negative for them strategically.

There's not a chance in hell Cameron will get the approval of the other 27 leaders, it's a wish list & nothing else.

The fact that the EU is unelected & Merkel & Shultz appear to calling the shots shows how bad the EU has grown, the immigration crisis was imploded by St mother Merkel & even her own infrastructure & authorities are struggling & backlash is clear.

EU is only happy when it dictates to other countries, it shows its true colours when they know it needs serious reform & being told publicly.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

In a purely selfish way I love travelling across most of Europe without having to stop at borders.
In a mostly unselfish way I don't think we should have the complete freedom of all of the E.u. citizens to come here. We're pretty full.

I agree in the selfish element, and Travelling & exploring through Europe is apart from certain current restrictions unlikely to change.

The U.K. Maybe an island but that tunnel is still being exploited by many, the underlying other issue is 'overstayers' who've no intention of returning.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

I travel from UK, through France, through Switzerland, to Italy. Which means I have to flash my passport at every border on the way. So what's the difference, on that, and several other routes.
The joke is that at present, in the EU, our own border is the only one interested in seeing a passport.

From what I've been reading in the press it goes beyond merely defending their citizens who live in the UK. Poland is activelly supporting several of the items which the British Government is trying to get being only one step short of saying that they want the same for themselves.


The reality of the German Chancellor being calling the shots (and I'm not a germanophobe, a germanophile if anything) is the reason why I question if the EU still exists other than as a rubber stamping organization. Many times I wonder if the EU is still real or if it already died but someone forgot to issue the death certificate.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

"The Germans"

"We're full!"

"Brick up the tunnel!"

I say, this thread has rather devolved into a Daily Mail headline generator.

The more educated forum users know full well to avoid anything DM focused.

The thread topic is being debated in many forums & some are much more intelligently contributed than some.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

That might be true on some things but I had read somewhere that Poland doesn't want the UK to do the 4 years in country and earning money before you get any benefits, maybe because they are one of the biggest takers in the EU? They did however say they would back it if the UK put troops in to Poland to show a strength on its borders as part of NATO

Why anyone should be getting UK child benefit payments for kids not even in the UK is beyond me, it just makes a laughing stock of the system no wonder Cameron wants to get it changed

Wayne

Edit
Just found the article
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/glo...ng-nato-320648

Wayne

Power without responsibility
 

There is an interesting view within this short article.
Is the EU finished if the British leave? | EurActiv
Two key statements relate to the phrase "reasoned opinion" and the potential consequences of such reasoning + the aspect of power without responsibility for the ensuing consequences.
The latter argument does touch a nerve or two.

TTIP is indeed of concern if only because those negotiations are being conducted in secret.
The power without responsibility view is very powerful in itself when applied to the multi-national corporations that use up a nations' resources (education, transportation, "human resources" etc) and put nothing back - not even some taxes apparently.
The furore of the last few years about "Bankers" is a case study in itself.

Argubly, the multi-nationals are the epitome of the selfish gene mentioned in earlier posts, but if your outlook is based on globalisation then that is hardly a surprise.

I must admit I have found some of the replies rather disturbing. Considering this is a traveller forum and generally populated full of open minded, well travelled friendly folk.

Political debates irrespective of forum type are not for everyone, not all attract intelligent, factual and non-provocative contributions.

I hope this thread continues to be non-bias, balance debate with a varied opinion.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

Very true...

The general feeling from this thread has been very anti Europe. That could be for many reasons but my guess is that most of the forum members probably don't want to get involved in a Daily Mail type thread. When I originally asked the question I thought the replies would be more balanced.

However..

I've read all the replies and they have been very interesting and thought provoking. I've learnt a lot.


I'm still undecided though. :)

Unfortunately I've not to date read 'all' 12 pages of the thread, however the impression of being anti-Europe isn't a true summary & conclusion to some.

Maybe It's the 'EU political' element & regular interference and meddling, especially from an unelected council.

Both campaigns have been poor to say the least, which is even more disturbing.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

I think if you do a thread like this you are going to get some points/quotes/replies which some people don't agree with. Even though I am a seasoned traveller and have been all over the world (not always on a bike) like most of the people on this forum and despite us being open minded it doesn't mean to say that we all agree with what is going on in the UK or with a group of unelected Eurocrats meddling where they can. It is/has been an interesting thread to read.

Wayne

But your poll currently has the 'NO to leave' camps in the lead. :oops2:

I wonder if you are insulated to a degree by being based in the Wirral and comfortably away from the migration hotspots. London always has been a melting pot of different nationalities and cultures but it's got to the stage where white UK-born people represent less than 50% of the total population.

Some people have longer memories of what happened and there's some awkward criticisms that benefit from being aired. It is said Labour Party politicians welcomed high levels of immigration on the basis that (1) the incoming migrants were typically more likely to be natural Labour Party voters, and (2) would likely vote Labour in thanks for the opening of borders. If true, this would be gerrymandering on a grand scale. At best it was an ill-considered social engineering project to make Britain multicultural.

When the EU expanded to the east in 2004 with the accession of the 'A10 countries' Tony Blair didn't have to open the UK to the Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians and other eastern Europeans. But he did and hundreds of thousands came.

They came to the UK because the Germans and others had restrictions in place for seven years—this is the origin of the proposed seven-year emergency brake for the UK. But this is all too late, I doubt we will get the seven-year brake and in any case it's locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I hasten to state I have no dislike of the Poles who I think are generally hard working and are not a burden to welfare, but it has placed increasing strain on our infrastructure—schools, hospitals, etc. But what I do find difficult to swallow is the reaction of the Polish government to suggestions from the EU that they shoulder some of the migration load. Seeing the country has been emptied by migration westwards, you would think they have space to spare, but apparently, Poles don't understand immigrants, don't want them. They fear immigrants take work away from Poles which is a bit rich when you consider what happened in the UK.

Everything I've written above has to do with migration, but I think it's too late to do much about that. As I've said before, my issue and the same for many other people is the increasing loss of sovereignty that the EU threatens.

It's not specifically an issue of foreigners taking the work from Poles' hands. Polish society (like Hungarian, another example) doesn't deal well with foreigners. Much less with foreigners with different cultural habits. Some may call them racists and, even if it might be a strong word to accurately define them, it also might not be too far from the point.

Both Poles and Hungarians have historical traumas with foreigners which left a deep fear in their colective mind. Further, during the most part of the XX Century they were closed without much contact with the outside world, let alone foreigners residing among them. All together caused these societies to be quite unwelcome to migrants. Even for tourists, if you leave the big cities, you may end up being looked with suspicion.


It's never too late. And, what's more, I'm affraid that if it isn't dealt with now, the people will end up dealing with it later in a much worst fashion. It's already happening, anyway, but it has the potential to become much worst.

The migration theme is one which I follow since the late 1990s. Ever since I've written and said the same thing and things are occuring as expected. Back then I advocated controls to the immigration for not doing so was inviting trouble in the future. In those times it could still had been dealt without major problems. If not, then we would see the growth of anti-immigration right-wing parties in several countries, something which started precisily in the late-90s. It happened and right now several anti-immigration parties are already in government in several countries. If it isn't dealt now, next stop might quite well be fascist or neo-nazi parties and that will be worst for everybody, starting by the immigrants themselves and it is quite possible that we end up assisting to mass-deportations and citizenship deprivations, even if in breach of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Seeing it from society, it has always been very clear to me that it was only a matter of time before people started taking care of things by themselves. It is already happening and I'm affraid that what we are seeing these days is just the beggining.

It would had been much easier to start solving the problem 10-12 years ago. Of course it was. But back then the political correctness (the plague of modern times) fully prevented any sort of solution or even the slightest curtailment to immigration like several other countries do. Like Australia, NZ, the USA or Canada do. It was impossible to do so in Western European Countries. So problems piled up, quietly but steadily. Right now there is still much that can still be done even if not as painlessly as if something had been done years ago. However the necessary measures go against moral principles in most Western European countries so nothing is done. But yes, Tim, a lot can be done right now. And should be done! For if not, something will indeed be done in the future (it's already starting in Denmark and France) which will be much, much worst for everybody. For the migrants above the rest, the good ones along with the bad elements.

At least no one's mentioned Diana :oops2:

Between Pegida and the national front in France (their fairly recent potential fortune in French elections), the average populace seems to equate Political asylum seekers fleeing for their lives and other migrants who are not in any physical danger. Several 'media' outlets blur or remove the destinations between these two very different groups. There was a recent video doing the rounds on social media that basically said if people thought asylum seekers from Syria were blagging their need to enter Europe, they should watch the attached video that showed very clearly the utter devastation created due to the war.

One of the main problems is, as a result of the bungled way both Iraq 'wars' were handled, none in the West are at all keen to get involved in Syria. If the international community had LEGALLY stepped in when the civil war began, then much of what's now happening would not be happening. The problem with many of our leaders is they cannot think beyond their next election, irrespective as to whether it would be best globally or not.

As to Ted's earlier point, I too began this thread thinking that we should not leave. I still hold this basic tenant, but I'd like some changes. Riding a motorbike, as many of us do, we are often at the sharp end of beaurocrats who make decisions arbitrarily, us having no recourse through elections to remove idiots who 'know best'. Although I'd like beaurocratic changes, I'm still a believer that we're stronger together.

Insulated from migrants on the Wirral !!! Hahah Hilarious. I think you need re-educating about your own country. Merseyside has one of the largest migrant populations in the UK. Probably due to lower prices than elsewhere in the U.K. We have one of the largest china towns in Europe and there are more Eastern Europeans in my home city than scousers. We have more foreign accents than I can recognise. Every restaurant and bar in Liverpool is staffed by Spanish and Italians. My partner is Italian too. The difference in Merseyside is that we are friendly, tolerant and used to high immigration as we were one of the busiest ports in the world. We embrace it, welcome it and integrate. There is very little ill-feeling about migration. It makes life colourful and interesting.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

"White UK-born people"

What's your point there Tim? You seem to use that statistic rather liberally and with a negative spin without really saying why you find it a nuisance? Are you referring to the non-UK born but "white" people, i.e. The hundreds of thousands of Irish and Americans, (though many of them could be "non-White"). I'm a quarter Black though you'd never know it from me being a ginger- where would I fit in? Should we differentiate between pure white and mostly white? I never understood these sorts of classifications and to be honest I think they are as abused as they are arbitrary. Maybe you could expand on that?

A short read about the FSA is quite revealing, who was funding it and how it was politically supported, etc. You're emphasis on legally was noted. The west have been after Assad for a while and I believe the 3 million or so refugees are a direct result of western intervention. NATO et al and whoever is running the show behind it are allowed to destroy counties and cause untold death, misery and suffering, the political frontmen are reshuffled and the war machine rumbles on.

Before the funding and arming of the FSA Syria was one of the most developed and progressive counties in the Middle East. It will take generations to overcome the destruction. Now it's just the latest stage in an absurd and unnecessary theatre of war between Iran, Russia and the West and Gulf States.

For whose benefit and interest does this new model of boarder less and never ending war suit? Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen (note the near total media black out!) and now Syria. It's totally depressing, and yet after decades of bombing the Middle East the newest and best solution is more of the same. All for resources which we can no longer afford to use.


For me there is a lot of hyperbole and simple bias dressed up as intellectual debate - little in the way of facts or analysis. It's mostly as simple as EU is bad and must go. But why? The reason is mostly because it 'doesn't work', though it's not said why. Will the UK, Europe or the world be a better place without the EU? If so why? It's all strawman - attacks on the EU itself as an institution and little about the actual policies, laws or regulation which it enacts.

So many are concerned about Britain losing it's Sovereignty..

It's just my uneducated opinion and I've not backed it up with hours of internet research but I don't think we have had Sovereignty since WW2..

Our culture was Americanised decades ago, our Royal family is on par with Disney World. We have no colonies left, our Navy is about as threatening as pedal boat fleet and we have to pretty much import everything that we enjoy.

So what is this Sovereignty we speak about ?? What do we want to go back to ??

Do we want to go back to sitting on a wet windy concrete seaside deckchair savouring meat pies and cold mushy peas ?

Where does this idea come from that if we leave the EU we will revert back to some promised land of 'Britishness'

The EU is BROKEN !! I can't and won't argue with that. It needs dramatic reform.

But if we leave that will just leave our spineless politicians to jump into bed with someone else.

So are we to become the 51st State of the USA next or maybe a new Chinese colony ??

There have been so many comments how we will be better off out of Europe ?? So please, tell me what comes next when we leave ??? What is the future ?? How will it be better ??

I, like most people have no idea....

Spineless politicians will go wherever they think it best suits 'their' career.

We'll not become the next 51st state.

I'd like the UK to fiscally progressive, and our UK is more than ugly enough to financially support itself.

No business has made plans to relocate, the UK's employment status is a huge attraction and we've still a skills shortage so the eu jobs issue will rebalance itself.

Last GE: project fear, Labour/SNP
EU ref: project fear mk2, scaremongering over trade, jobs and unattractive to other wise countries.

So far I've seen very little global vision just eu tunnel vision.

However, the electorate always votes for the safe option so is be extremely surprised if we do leave.....


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

Fiscally progressive and global vision, EU tunnel vision, what do these mean? Forgive me I'm so tired of news speak and buzz words.

A tad ingenious reply. That's Liverpool and its chinatown you are describing. The Wirral is on the west bank of the Mersey and has highly desirable locations such as Wallasey, Heswall and Bebbington. Multi-milllion pound houses, footballers' mansions...

A bit like comparing Chelsea and Battersea.

I think you possibly had a different word in mind than 'liberally' (open to new ideas, broad-minded, generous, etc.).

What's my point? It's that the original population of London (compared, say, to the days of WWII) is becoming a minority. Did I say it was a nuisance? Er... no. Did I give it a negative spin? Again, no.

It was an observation. Have a read of the 2011 census.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.. Your googling needs work. But good attempt.

I was born in Liverpool and I spend half my week there and half on the Wirral. So forgive me if I think I know my own region better than you.. Considering I've lived there my whole life.

I'm sure you know better though and you will no doubt Google some half facts to back it up.

Today's posts bring me back to a thought from page 1. The EU is a bus tour run by a committee. If you want to be in you have to live with the CAP, paying benefits to whoever, straight bananas etc. The Swiss are on a motorcycle tour, they call in the places on the bus tour they fancy and avoid the bingo and service station food.

How two faced the politicians will be reflected in their response to Dave's deal. My money is on every single one including Dave backing it. The Polish PM is the only one with the balls to tell it straight; fit in with the bus tour or go ride your bike and risk getting wet if it rains. The rest want us to pay our share even if we hate it and continue to cause strife because we don't like their plan.

Andy

We have gone full circle in the viewpoints
 

I came into this thread with my own statement of “pro-Europe, anti-EU”.
Currently I think that if we do end up with a no to the exit vote then it will be “business as usual”; a vote for the status quo.
No change of any significance, carry on in the same old ways.
The current poll within here does indeed show a majority against leaving but it also shows a majority want change; that begs many questions.


There is the aspect of the challenge.
A new start; up for making our own way in the world.
Break out of the current dross of our lives, personal and/or societal and governmental, roll the dice and get on with improving Britain without always looking over our shoulders for what others lay down as the rules.
Raise our sights, have imagination, work harder, yes, but also better – more intelligently with an increased sense of “being in it together”, yep! that well worn phrase. Everyone would have to take on greater personal responsibility for their actions, their inputs, their outputs; none of this would be simple and it would take a great amount of both time and effort.
To do this would not be easy, it would need a brand new approach, across many many spheres of activity; we would have to demand that our government changes for a start, if necessary by sacking them – not easy, the way it is set up at present. For instance, the 5 year fixed term for a parliament would have to be changed back to the arrangements of earlier days so that a vote of no confidence within that house would bring about a new election more or less immediately. We have been conned by our own representatives to think that they have tenure, come what may, for a full 5 years.
Similar actions would be necessary in many other aspects, at all levels of government.
It would need a government of national unity, putting party politics on the back burner while the issues are clearly identified and dealt with; in essence the country would be on what is normally referred to as a war footing for an indeterminate length of time.
In short, nothing would be unthinkable in dealing with the best interests of the UK; for instance, a federal structure to deal with the Scots' wish to leave the UK. However, if they do so confirm that wish then so be it – there would be no point in a pressed nation continuing to drain our stamina with constant complaints. A nation that decides by referendum to check out of the EU could only agree that those who wish to leave the UK have the right to do just that.


Leadership will be needed and it may be in short supply at first, going by the standard of politicians we see at present; not many of the current crop show any real motivation beyond their own personal careers – in short, statesmanship is currently in short supply.
Those in the shadows who have capability would need to step forward, speak up and see off those they know who have been in place merely for their own selfish, self-aggrandising interests.


To do this would also show an extraordinary level of leadership to the remainder of the European nations; arguably they would draw heart from a UK decision to leave and take up their own challenges within their countries thereby building their own better futures.
We would be, should be, respected for having taken the decision and, thereby, taken the lead in a new deal for all of Europe that wishes to reform.
Necessary trade arrangements and similar technical data would flow there from.


The alternative is what?
Another round of financial crisis is on the way in any case; when we are told the story that we are a rich country it is conveniently forgotten that the whole edifice is based on a mountain of debt.

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

You think the financial crisis was the fault of the EU and not a rotten, corrupt and completely unregulated and irresponsible financial industry. You really believe that the UK has been held back by its EU membership rather than an entrenched ruling class and total commitment to the failed economic model of neo-liberalism?

I wonder if you have taken in by the propaganda that we 'maxed out the nations credit card', like so many. This was nothing but a lie to bring in purely ideological attack on public services otherwise known as austerity (not for the rich though, their benefits have not been affected).

Nation States with central banking are built on debt. Money is debt. Government borrows money to spend on infrastructure and state services and gets it back through selling bonds and taxation. When the 08 crash happened the UK had relatively low debt, compared to other successful EU states.

Then Austerity was brought in and our economy has been stagnant since while the deficit (the money paid to service the debt - anyone know to whom it is paid?) has exploded. Thoroughly discredited elsewhere, Osbourne and whoever tell him what to do push it though, probably just out of pure contempt for the likes of you and I, and pretty much everyone else who isn't filthy rich.

Look at the debt of Germany, Japan or the USA, or any other G8 nation and tell me they are in credit. A mountain of national debt means nothing in a strong economy, it's a problem when the debt can't be serviced, because a sluggish economy reduces income from taxation and a tanking economy means high risk bonds thus the government has to sell them cheaper for higher rates of return. When all these things come together you end up with something like Greece, though certainly, it seems there was more to that just that.

On a side note, If we want to talk about power and sovereignty - go read about the history of central banking - especially during the formative years of the US and the Fed. States who can't control their own supply of money for the betterment of society gave up their sovereignty when they handed the supply of money over to the bankers. Lots of talk about the EU being broken but not much on fractional reserve banking and central banking and who our financial system really benefits. Wonder why?

No.

And everything else you wrote in your last post is over in this thread:
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...c-crisis-59853

and has been for about the last 4 years.

As before, the alternative is what??

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

An alternative model of banking or of our economic system in general? I believe reintroducing something resembling the Glass Steagall act, reevaluating who central banking works for, bringing in true progressive taxation, working on total transparency in government, and declaring 'war' on inequality would be a good start. Also if you already know everything I wrote why are you still talking about national debt as though it was somehow affected by the EU?

Not challenging that you know the region, but you claimed (by implication) that the Wirral had one of the largest migrant populations in the UK, largest chinese towns, oodles of eastern Europeans, Spanish, Italians, etc., whereas you were really talking about Liverpool.

Which is not the Wirral.

You do recall I was talking about the Wirral and not Liverpool?

In this context sovereignty is the ability of the UK to govern itself and the UK Parliament being the supreme power. It's not a case of losing it, more the case we have currently already lost it and wish to regain it.

Sovereignty has been gradually eroded since minor points of the Treaty of Rome, the worst incident being the Maastricht Treaty. If you want to find out more, I'd suggest you google 'maastricht sovereignty'.

I haven't.

Take a look at my reference thread; the last 6 weeks of postings is enough, in this context (I summarised the whole earlier 4 years about then).
See what you think.

I think that the Sovereignty people are talking about is the UK being governed (rightly or wrongly) by the UK elected members and not by the Un-Elected Eurocrats in Brussels. We vote people in to run the country and if they don't do the job well then we have a choice to vote in someone else at the given time. This choice is not given to us in the EU and rules/laws which may be good for one member of the EU may not be good for others.

As for becoming the 51st State of the US, :rofl:, I would rather stay in the EU

Wayne

As far as I knew we vote in European MP's and the system is more or less based on parliamentary democracy, no? How is the EU not democratic? EU citizens no more have a say in voting in the 'eurocrats' any more than we have voting in our civil service.

About the same way that the UK is not democratic, but that's the short answer.

Consider the EC*, the ECB and the roles of the "5 Presidents", especially the "Eurogroup" of financial ministers, as subsidiary replies.


* For clarity, the EC is identifed in here: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e...munities_e.htm
(i.e. the Commission)

From earlier in this thread...

Well... going on our past and present UK political leaders we may as well have a meercat to run our country.

Attachment 17075

But saying that he will probably use his 2 for 1 best friend cinema ticket to dump his front bench and invite Obama instead :clap:

Sorry.. a bit off topic but couldn't resist it :mchappy:

Can you point to what EU legislation accommodates this and how this has given Merkel undue influence? Otherwise it's just hyperbolic - And as far as
I knew the UK has only taken in 20,000 from Syria?

You should read the Daily Mail.

Millions of them are here illegally already. Millions more are just waiting to get there. They're all heavily armed rapists and most of them are also carrying machine guns, selling drugs to children and raping old women.

:eek:

You've totally missed the reasoning. If there was EU legislation giving her the power it would be democratic. But there isn't, therefore it is undemocratic. Nein?

Merkel has undue influence due to Germany's role as paymaster of euroland. This is not democracy. Read Germany's power polarises Europe.


Nowt to do with democratic processes.

The link requires a login to read the full article; in any case, the ref is to Greece and there are plenty of other sources for information about that case study.
As recently as last night on UK TV there ran a 1 hour doc about the islands and mainland of Greece (with a second episode to run next Sunday).
The island of Crete was a particularly striking report.
Even allowing for an amount of stage management of such TV reporting it was striking.

Greece has overall unemployment rates of 25% and 50% for minors: this in a country which has a recent history of government by the "Junta" of generals, never mind the turn toward communism immediately after WW2.

The contrast between the northern Europe countries and Greece is stark.
Even geographically, Greece is out on a limb with no contiguous boundary to the Shengen zone.

Regarding how the EU goes about it's business, see the economic crisis thread for what happened in Cyprus* as an indication of how the ECB does business with the nation states that adopted the Euro.

*Ps
It's on page 8:-
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...crisis-59853-8

If there is anyone out there
 

I've just noticed that the documentary about Greece is repeated on BBC2 this very night - at 2315.

I get the impression that you may not be aware of the interview in the link below.
It is relevant to the points you make above and I have underlined the most relevant.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-g...udan-iran/5166

I think this sums it up

Portugal wrinkles its nose at UK's EU deal - BBC News

The Portuguese economy is in the toilet. They view coming to the UK as easier than learning a language other than English and like our modern society over their own traditional one. Their government doesn't give a damn about the UK but will sell the commission their vote if they get something they do want.

The result is that
Londoners cant afford the rent in their own city and every green space will be built on. We don't train nurses because we can just hire Portuguese ones. It's like working hard to buy a nice house then finding every tramp in the city can just move in.

The Portuguese need to sort their own country not move here or their economy will remain stuffed. Britain needs to be forced to use its own resources first.

Andy

Portugal is one of the PIGS, and the financial commentators have provided a lot of input to where those countries are heading.
All of the PIGS economies have gone down the pan; currently, many commentaries forecast that Italy will be next to go the way of Greece.

The BBC article reminds me of the 50 States of the USA, wherein the populations are relatively mobile and go to where ever the employment opportunities are best for their personal circumstances - levels of education, training, knowledge of the local language and their "get up and go" approach to life in general (a bit like a motorcycle traveller).

We in the UK are hoisted on our own petard; having given the English language to the world, more or less by accident, it is no surprise that it is an attraction to use fluency in that language for individuals to better themselves.
"Fluency" though; there is a big difference between a basic conversational skill and dealing with, say, technical "speak" - some years ago I attended a meeting with a german construction company based in Cologne and my conversational german lasted no more than a couple of minutes once the topics moved on to talk about bridging over the river Rhine.

Of course, we export our pensioners to the PIGS countries, for their own better personal lives, lower cost of living, better weather in the winter, improvement in their arthritic symptoms, a better diet etc etc.
Thereby, we export our £ denominated pensions, convert them to Euro and spend cash into those economies.

Portugal gives us, in return, better football managers. :innocent:

This is the European Commission outlook for 2016 and beyond
 

This is how the EC sees the way the EU economy is going.
(viewed from their desks there is just one economy covering the 28 nations).

EUR-Lex - 52015DC0690 - EN - EUR-Lex

ps
It is remarkably short considering that it does address the issues of 28 highly diverse nations.
Having skim read it, I see many platitudes therein.

In Spanish newspaper ABC it was news a few days ago that the current Portuguese government blackmailed the European Commission with the subject of Brexit. It was said that if the Commission did not approve Portugal's state budget, then, the Portuguese Government would veto the concessions made to Britain when the time comes.

It does not surprise me the least.



As absurd as it may seem, that is exactly the mandate of the Commission just like ECB's mandate is to look at the weighted average of the Eurozone countries' indicators when deciding monetary policy.

That is the EU and this is what is in the treaties. Mind you, these treaties were negotiated and approved by the governments of the constituent countries. They did not come from Pluto.

Real Politick
 

Nor I, this is not extraordinary and the Portugese have been shaping up for a confrontation with the EU central powers ever since their last internal elections at the tail end of last year. All of the PIGS are anti-austerity to different degrees whereas the central powers are as we know them all too well.

I wouldn't describe it as "blackmail" (but I can also understand why a Spanish newspaper would use that terminology about the Portuguese, or the Catalonians for that matter).
It is a normal part of political (in this case) chicanery prior to the next big round of agreements/summit.
All of us do the same thing when "buying off the wife in order to take the next riding trip over the horizon".

The Portugese may have more success with their budgetting than the Greeks managed last Summer because the circumstances have changed with the Brexit question.

The Mandate:-
Fiscal policy sure. Although the EC is supposed to be the executive body responsible for implementing the policies of all 28 nations, all 5 presidents can be seen to be totally engrossed in the preservation of the Eurozone.
Hence the interests of all of the EU nations receive scant attention at present.

Monetary, no - as you say, that lies with the 19 alone (I think that is the number who are members of the eurozone).

But, yes, these points do go to the heart of what our PM has been negotiating with the other nations, the EU bureaucrats, the EC bureaucrats and who ever else might get to sit up to the table. e.g. Will the £ support the Euro?
(there was a moderately interesting wee snippet a few days ago, when the peanut farmer, ex-President, was wheeled in for an interview on some new item - he fluffed his lines and, fairly quickly for an old man, corrected himself. To wit, "Britain staying in the EU is good for America" which is probably true from their viewpoint).

The exact word "blackmail" is mine. Not from ABC. They merely stated the facts which amount to blackmail.


Portugal's situation is different than Greece's. Portugal is not so down the drain as Greece was... for now. In any event either bankruptcy or a new bailout (if other Euro countries are willing to throw more good money after bad) are on the cards for Portugal with this new red government.

Food for thought
 

Following up on that report from the Commission I have been reading a critique of a central tenet contained in the EC plans, namely the intention to run with an investment plan (EFSI).
That critique, in the two links below, is based on the Von Mises school of economic thinking (which was mentioned in this thread previously - as shown in the annual growth plan).

The EU’s Stalinesque “4 Year Plan” |


The EU’s Ghost Airports |

The individual nations through the EC subscribe to a centralised, planned economy if this critique is accepted, no matter what the political colours of those nations (along the way I noted that the UK is making the largest single contribution to this EFSI, by a small margin - as shown in the annual growth plan).
?c?

It has been tried before now .......
 

......... I mean the Latin Monetary Union which collapsed with the onset of the First World War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Monetary_Union

There was also a Scandinavian Monetary Union in those turbulent times.

Circumstances are different nowadays, we are much more sophisticated in our thinking and more mature in our approach to life in general and financial and monetary matters in particular. :innocent:

An across Europe common currency was proposed in 1929, in the run up to WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...European_Union

"First idea of an economic and monetary union in Europe were raised well before establishing the European Communities. For example, already in the League of Nations, Gustav Stresemann asked in 1929 for a European currency[3] against the background of an increased economic division due to a number of new nation states in Europe after World War I"

The currency is typical European thinking. In Alsace or Luxembourg they would always accept any currency from Francs and Marks through to cigarettes and nylons depending on the situation. The exchange rate depended on if you bought there every week or turned up wearing a Hawaiian shirt and checked trousers. The government silliness trying to look richer than they were and gain power over their neighbours just creates a tradeable commodity and puts pressures on economies working in synthetic conditions.

The currency trade is now cut out and business finds it easier but the replacement has just been to set up different price structures for different countries in the same currency. Lack of enforcement of the single market means one exchange rate has been replaced by thousands. Touratech are a prime example; German prices are only for Germans.

Andy

Yes, Portugal is marginally better off than Greece, and the circumstances that led to those 4 nations achieving the distinction of the label "PIGS" (by the financial media) do vary.
But all 4 have had weak economies for some time, Ireland much less so now, and those in the south of Europe are being cleaned out by the Troika.
It could be called "tough love" or it could be described as the rape of entire countries (earlier commentary elsewhere with respect to last summer described Greece as the victim of waterboarding).
No country will be permitted to declare bankruptcy at present; each must stay within the Euro zone, no matter what it costs their respective populations.
Italy is currently in trouble with its' banks and capital is departing; this can be done via use of the Euro which can be "manipulated" to convert Italian bonds into, say, German bonds - in effect, there really are 28 Euro currencies of the 28 nations despite the perceptions of the general public.

Footnote:
This is a very good reason to get out of Italian bank bonds --
http://ellenbrown.com/2015/12/29/a-c...ail-ins-begin/


For sure: see the brief description above for why the Euro is a sham unless it applies to a single, unified nation with a common fiscal, monetary and legal system, as a minimum.

What struck me about the wiki articles in my last post was how "those guys" never give up on their ideas and plans for hegemony across Europe.
They just keep coming back.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...european-union

Interesting article from George Monbiot on the eu.

I had not heard of "Glass-Steagall" and their act, so I did some reading and find that it applies to the USA, or it did.
Ellen Brown writes about it (she is in my earlier link of 3 days ago).
Our equivalent, as far as I can tell, is this:-
Research Briefings - The Independent Commission on Banking: The Vickers Report & the Parliamentary Commission on banking standards
The lead "guy" in this is interviewed on UK news on occasions. He talks a lot of sense.

In any case, there isn't a great deal of depth to the economic points made in this thread which is OK by me because the fundamentals are over there, on another side of the HUBB pub:-
On balance, I am inclined to think that we have more chance of reforming our banking system, and much else besides, outside of the nightmare that the EU has become.
This guy thinks differently, but he didn't last long when he came up against the raw power of the central European powers:
The EU no longer serves the people – democracy demands a new beginning | Yanis Varoufakis | Opinion | The Guardian

For me, his final paragraph is a cop out:-
"I believe that we should remain within the union. But we should do so in the spirit of true scepticism: a refusal to believe anything until we have read the small print; a refusal to suspend our disbelief. Is it possible to be a pro-European Eurosceptic? I hope so, because that is what I am"
For Monbiot, "the spirit of true scepticism" above means do nothing.

I am also a pro-European Eurosceptic and I see things more like this (it is one of the comments made on Monbiots' article):-
"I'm starting to hate my husband. He is a bully, ignores my wishes and will never change his ways. He also takes lots of my hard-earned money and I am supposed to be grateful when I get a little of it back...though he tells me what to spend it on.
He has started bringing in lots of people into our house and its getting cramped but he doesn't care. Yesterday he said there's still enough room for lots of his Turkish, Albanian and Bosnian friends.
I can't bring myself to leave him though, because....I'm absolutely terrified of becoming independant."


As per my longish post of about a week ago (post number 242 on page 17), are we up for this or do we follow Monbiots' lack of moral fibre?

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

What's lacking about his 'moral fiber'? - can you point out what he said which compromised or was counter to his 'moral fibre' - and since when has deciding EU membership been a moral decision? What's it got to do with morality? I have to say Walkabout you are prone to using a lot of emotive and loaded language while being rather short on facts and evidence - maybe you ought to consider journalism as a day job. :D

For me he basically says the EU is bad and needs improvement but the alternative is worse, i.e. An unfettered, unaccountable and arguably undemocratic system we have now which would be strengthened by EU withdrawal. I largely agree on this having a very cynical view on UK 'democracy' and believing the greater the checks and balances on power the better.

His main point is on the environment and public health and how the EU still has some teeth left between enforcing power for the public good and corporate power - where as the UK government is completely acquiescent to special interests.

The point he refers to would be;

EU legislation on air pollution;

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-air-pollution

The European Drinking Water Directive;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drin...ater_directive

And I think I'd add my own example of how the EU didn't bow down to big agribusiness like Monsanto and banned the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam for two years to observe the effect of the bee pollution in Europe. Our government in all it's wisdom lobbied hard against it!

https://www.rt.com/news/bee-eu-pesticides-ban-750/

So it's legislation like this I would largely be voting for as I think the UK ruling class must be diluted as much as possible. In the current global system I think we need the EU and the benefit of membership far exceed its costs - and - I include immigration in this. I think the UK is a better country with immigration than without.

Incidentally I think most people's fear and hatred of the EU seems to flow from immigration. I don't think immigration within the EU is the problem and nor will it go away with the EU itself. For me the hypocrisy with the British is especially foul - that we're all up for bombing the Middle East back to the Middle Ages on 'humanitarian' grounds but when the millions of displaced from the counties who've had the NATO treatment who turn up, we're not so humanitarian after all. Note the Dublin Convention.

In the spirit of true scepticism
 

Monbiot claims to be a Eurosceptic, but he hasn't the balls to do anything about that = no moral fibre.

Your mileage does vary, but you do have a touching faith in the nascent EUSSR.

In practice, it is this:-
The Visegrad States’ Posture on Europe’s Refugee Crisis Poses a Real Threat to Greece

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Faith? I try to judge on facts. I outlined some EU policy above. A whole lot more than the no crowd have done, who apparently have absolutely nothing to contribute accept hyperbole, anecdote, and a very strange sort of language they've apparently lifted from tabloid columnists.

Yes- I think it's basically that the first place refugees arrive is the one in which they must seek asylum. Very unfair on Greece and Italy.

I think we could have a whole different topic on immigration though!

As they said on Mock the Week the Greek economy is in such bad shape they'd be better off pretending to be Syrian refugees and trying to get into Germany.

Given they tried claiming back money they were forced to lend Germany at gun point in 1943, that's going not going to end well.

Andy

Is Cameron's deal enough for any of you guys? I'm a little underwhelmed, I must admit, despite being that rare breed of a pro-European Brit.

Has Dave dun it for me? No, of course not, but I never expected him to come back waving much more than a piece of P.R. dept paper. I think you'd have to have been pretty close to the in /out balance point to be swayed either way by what he achieved.

I'll listen with due diligence to what the out-ers come up with but it's going have to be a lot better than a harking back to our numerous finest hours and a bravado based assertion that we're big enough to go it alone.

Now that the starting gun has been fired I'll been keeping an ear out for the first of the factions to use the phrases "united we stand, divided we fall" or "chained to a cadaver".

I've already been emailed by the local LibDems (there are a few left) inviting me to attend a "Vote in with the LibDems" meeting, complete with free window stickers. I probably will put one up but only if I can get the "UKIP says stay in" version. :rofl:

Has every sign of half measures that they will try and wheedle out of later. The French are already saying there will be no treaty change when there supposedly has to be to get out of ever closer union.

I'm unconvincable though. Our own politicians like the comfort blanket of blaming their failures on the EU, that is what needs to go and also why Cameron would have supported any deal short of the commission appointing his replacement. The concept of political union is wrong to me.

Andy

Watching the news channel France 24 (in English!) the other day, they were interviewing a MEP from UKIP. Not surprisingly, this guy was spouting some seriously anti-European rhetoric and the lady 'interviewing' him (he basically had his own agenda, shocker) was getting increasingly annoyed with his ranting. Like those above, I'm hoping that the 'arguments' put forward are reasoned and intelligent, although I'm sure the opposite will be true. doh

Also, if Gove wants to leave, is it wrong that that means I definitely want to stay :innocent:

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

Gove is a very close ally of the PM however as he's also 'justice secretary' which also means he'll see tangible evidence of Brussels interference & meddling.

The so called David Cameron 'deal'
is toilet paper, the 'small print' states no change in current systems as it requires 'treaty change' , the EU doesn't want to reform.






Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

The Common Market was started for the very best of reasosn, to help build a great Europe after the destruction of WW2, although lets not forget president De Gaulle did his best to keep Britain out of any united Europe for as long as possible, bizzarely cozying up with the Germans.

I am all in favour of freedom of trade and the freedom of movement granted to European citizens, but the Common Market has given birth to a monster called the EU that bears little or no resemblance to the ideals of it's birth.

If I were a veteran of WW2 I would look in dismay at the way Germany has gained economic control of Europe and wonder if it was all really worth it. Germany runs the EU, economically and politically. To have a country like Greece forced to follow the same economic policy as Germany is madness, utter madness. It was this rigidity of fiscal policy in an area of economic and political diversity that destroyed the Irish economy. Years before the crash everyone knew the Irish economy was overheating, but because they were economically shackled to Europe that had entirely different economic pressures.

So in Essence I want freedom of trade, and Freedom of movement for European citizens, but I don't want this monster of bureaucracy, corruption, micromanagement and meddling that the EU has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez-88_hIrLY

OUT
 

Well i was undecided, but if i was going to vote (and i can if i want) i would vote out of the EU, i see no benefit for UK to stay in a failed "union"

And if the UK bails im sure others will follow & that will be the end of the EU.

Mezo.

It may be paranoia but I'm detecting a stitch up in the teams they've picked. It's like a school playground where everybody wants to be Man U but everybody has to take turns at being Millwall.

If we vote in Dave will. " forgive" Boris and Gove and it'll be champagne and peerages all round.

If we vote out, Dave will give Boris the nod on his promotion, Boris will say Dave is great for following the will of the people, Gove the pantomime villain will pretend to reeducate the cabinet and it'llbe champagne and peerages all round.

doh

Andy

I honestly think we'll unfortunately remain 'IN' due to the electorate 'safe voting' & fear of change.

Unknown territory is what the EU are hoping the British voters will be thinking so remaining in thinking we'll be OK, nasty politics lay ahead


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

You say that like it's a bad thing. Surely, playing it safe versus taking a risk is what this is all about.

I get the intellectual and philosophical arguments about why we should leave; "freedom", "freedom' and "freedom", but few of the practical ones.

It's all a bit sad really.. I suppose the Idea of a united Europe was, when first suggested a good idea, but then the corruption, incompetence, and greed quickly took over, and like a lot of 'good ideas' soon became a massive failure.

I think the referendum will be a fix, and we'll stay in, there are too many people making a lot of money for it to fail.

Boris Johnson's decision to campaign for BREXIT might make a big difference for those who are not yet decided. Official announcement expected tonight.

Any Authority that is unelected and unaccountable is only going to a bad place....

Well, I guess it's easy for me. My company does 75% of it's business in Euro and 25% in dollars. We leave, the pound collapses, I'm quids in. We leave, the pound strengthens, I and the company move back to France. We stay, I stay.

The pound (Sterling) is already tanking .. substantially over the course of just this past weekend. LINK

Plenty to talk about at this year's HUBB UK Meet then .. a few days before the Big R!

Too much excitement for one week! :D
Will I cope with it all?

5 reasons to act
 

Now the “FUD” will commence as the campaigning starts in earnest.


A while ago there was a request for 5 reasons:



Sovereignty.
Within this comes -

Control of national borders.


Responsibility for the security of the nation which has always been a primary responsibility of any government – and that goes way beyond the basic concepts of security (based on “home” and “foreign” policy) to the health of the citizens and many other aspects.


Responsibility for the economic well being of the nation – there is much more to this than a simple consideration of trade (see the economic crisis thread).
So, “Security” relates to both home policy and foreign policy – for the latter we have very much permitted the EU to take over via their efforts in the past few years to develop such a single policy with non elected bureaucrats carrying out some functions e.g. the World Trade Organisation has EU representation which acts on behalf of all the nations of the EU.


As something of a subset consideration, but totally relevant, I think it is necessary to remember that none of the modern geo-political blocs in this world developed to where they are now without spilling a considerable amount of blood.
The USA got off relatively lightly via its' mid-19th century civil war in the sense that it did not last very long.
The Peoples' Republic of China is the current result (it may well change yet) of the deaths of perhaps 70m people (estimates vary); via yet another civil war (the long march) and then the cultural revolution (wave your little red book at this point).
Russia is a classic of the genre, with years of internal conflict, revolution, and control by despotic rulers.


What I am saying is that the EU cannot achieve its' own declared aims without its' own internal conflict, far beyond anything that we have seen to date, in Greece for example.
I cannot be sure in my own mind what is the best for the UK in these circumstances; we got sucked into WW1 after staying out of European problems for all of 99 years (1815 - 1914) and we have been much more closely involved ever since then. But nowadays, NATO is the main plank of our foreign defence policy.



Sense of community.
It seems to me that there may be an optimum level of identification by those of a country with their nation – the “citizen effect” that politicians tend to pontificate about.
It is hard to pin it down, but there can be little doubt that it exists.
Nor does it seem to relate to the physical scale of the country or any other particular factor; it just “is” - it exists.
The Germans have a term “Heimat”. They had their own TV series with that title quite a few years ago.
It seems likely that the Scottish have the same sense of belonging. The Catalonians also.
The optimum size of a country is what? I don't know – there are so many factors to it, but Europe has always been so diverse that the current aims of the EU are not compatible with the populations of the 28 existing countries much less any potential new entrants (97% of the land mass of Turkey, for instance, lies within Asia – to have a trade agreement with that country would be fine but to integrate? - how can that be?).
There are currently 24 official languages in use across 28 nations – that will work OK?


The legal system.
As outlined previously, continental law is derived from Roman practice later modified by Napoleonic law.
UK law is based on case law over 1000+ years including key stages such as Magna Carta.
The two are simply not compatible – nor am I saying that our system is perfect, it has problems but trying to bring in commonality with Europe when there are so many other issues at present makes little sense to me.


Trade.
Ability to act as a single entity; where does the optimum lie for the future?
An independent Britain could take it's own seat at the WTO; we are nominally there at present, but we allow the EU to represent us, as do other EU nations.
We hold a seat on the UNSC and, no doubt, various other bodies; for instance, we recently joined the AIIB.
(We can be pretty sure that the EU would like to take on the UNSC role, from both France and the UK - the latter are 2 of the 5 permanent members).
Coming up we have TTIP (check on that).
Personally, I don't buy the ridiculous argument that the UK, with its' history of trading, cannot manage without the EU.



Financial/Economic.
This has probably been covered adequately in this thread, although there is much more to follow now that the terms of the “agreement” have been negotiated, subject to ratification by the EU parliament after the date set for the UK referendum.
If not, then there is quite a bit more at the economic crisis thread in the HUBB pub.
The UK has much more chance of dealing with the econ crisis as a standalone nation then it has as one of 28 all trying to share the responsibility for the EU decisions.
As identified earlier, the theory is that the EU makes decisions without having to be held responsible for the consequences of those decisions e.g, the current state of Greece – the undoubted issues that lie within the borders of that troubled country could have been helped by the EU/ECB, but the Eurozone was the only priority when it came down to it.
In practice, the central powers of the EU – often referenced as the “Troika” in commentary, exert undue influence to put it in diplomatic language.
Judge by what they do and not so much by what they say.


As a summary point, for any and all of this we really do need a better standard of leadership than is extant at present.
This comment applies at all levels of society frankly.
The selfishness that is evident in many many case studies will continue?

Should Britain leave the E.U. ???
 

The EU relies heavily on UK fiscal contributions, if the UK leaves then other members have to contribute more, which means our contribution can be focused on homegrown serious issues rather than cutting back or closing them.

Our MoJ, justice secretary is consistently battling with the EU due to over-ruling UK judges, once our Supreme Court has delivered that's it, no overseas interference or meddling.

Controlled immigration is poor due to insufficient resources.

Our welfare system, housing and infrastructure is struggling due to the above point.

Our trade & industry will continue despite the scaremongering & the City of London financial district will adjust and continue, a global business vision instead of a EU tunnel vision isn't that hard, just ask the Chinese investing in Africa & other non-EU countries.

Our European countries manages well enough without being a EU lapdog there's no reason why the UK can continue either.

It's political disagreements, interference and meddling which the EU has exacerbated beyond its fundamental origins.



Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

Why call it a monster? Why do the no crowd always use loaded and emotive language which reads like something you'd find in a Daily Mail column? Seems to me a lot of people here just regurgitate puff pieces and opinion. Let's talk facts shall we?

How does Germany run the EU Can you point to what legal structure or framework of the EU has allowed Germany to gain unfair leverage; and provide examples of how Germany used this? Shouldn't the best performing economy in the EU have more leverage than say a weak one? Any facts to back this up?

Are the two separable? By 'meddling' do you mean the legislation on air pollution, river destruction and health I pointed to earlier or did you have something else in mind? Do you think if we vote to leave the Europeans will be so accommodating to give us what we want? i.e. All the benefits and none of the costs? You can't have it both ways - either vote to stay in and pressure through reform or vote to leave and live with the consequences. Why should the UK be given special treatment?

Where do the people who want to leave the EU plan to take Britain once they leave?

Would they just tow the island to a slightly warmer climate nearby, perhaps near the Canary Islands, or do they propose to move it all the way to perhaps the Caribbean? Obviously the Med is out, 'cause Britain would not fit through the Straits of Gibraltar.

I have not been following this topic very closely, hence my unfamiliarity with what proposals are on the table.

Michael

Don;t know but we've got a seat on the UN Security Council so trade should be okay. doh

The aim & overall objective of the referendum is focused on the whole EU interference, meddling and failure to address serious issues along with reform, the reform proposals had to be agreed by all 27 other EU leaders, with some countries needing the EU gravy train more than the EU needing them.

Personally, and unfortunately I'll wager we'll remain in, the U.K. Has an opportunity to leave & be 'politically independent & self governed' via the forthcoming referendum, our PM's recent attempted negotiations were for diplomatic justifications only & like previous Governments have let the electorate down.

The EU dictatorship exacerbates & avoids reform responsibility and fiscal governance.

We'll still remain EU trading partners and poor scaremongering from some businesses and industries will adjust and continue as its in their best interest.


Sent from my MoJ mobile tagging device

The in campaign have the easier task. "All you can eat until Christmas and no foxes" will sell well amongst the occupants of the chicken shed.

These top level business people are all rich enough to buy their way out of the EUs personal restrictions and are in the positions they are because they are used to bending over when their bosses tell them to. The good ones, the real entrepreneurs should be itching to get out in the rest of the world and do their stuff free of petty regulation.

Andy