The EU - Leave or Remain?

[jont-]

I voted for 100% of the system that appoints both civil service and supreme court, and if we had major problems with either the UK people could vote in those who could / would change it - we can't do that with the EU as we are not the full constituency...

So where do you want to stop your power play? England? Your county? Your town? House?
What makes "The uk" the right level of control, rather than something smaller or larger?

[Strangely Brown]

It's not a power play. It's a return to the way that it was before we were sold down the river without being asked. Everything is already in place for the UK to [once again] be the right level of control. All we have to do is leave the club.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

JonT was probably born after we joined the EU, so has nothing to compare with. That said, the 1960s and early 1970s had a lot of bad points as well as good. Some of that was due to recovering from fighting a very expensive war against the last rather less subtle attempt to create a federal Europe

[akirk]

I think there are already well established groupings and while there is still some flex, (eg Scotland in or out of the U.K.) generally we operate at mainly a country level, with some decisions made at other levels - and we already have an understanding roughly of how you split which decisions are made at which level.

The issue with the EU is that all this logic is thrown out of the window, we have a group acting at a non-defined level above countries, yet also interfering at a detail level within those countries, there is no clear philosophy about how or why it is involved, is its job to handle cross-country issues (which makes sense) or does it want to actually run those countries (which seems to be the direction currently)...

There is also no historic precedence for this increasing formalisation of a cross-country relationship... In fact plenty of precedence to show that it doesn't work...

Alasdair

[Silk]

JonT was probably born after we joined the EU, so has nothing to compare with. That said, the 1960s and early 1970s had a lot of bad points as well as good. Some of that was due to recovering from fighting a very expensive war against the last rather less subtle attempt to create a federal Europe

The EU as we know it now didn't really come into being until the Maastricht Treaty in 1991, although it was a gradual process rather than a specific moment in time. The problem is, it's still work in progress and can only get worse. Until now, we've never had a vote on whether or not we wish to be a member of the EU. It seems to me that the arguments to remain are more about the advantages of the Common Market and nothing at all to do with the other stuff. It's a shame it's all or nothing.

If the vote on Thursday was to join the Common Market as originally put forward, I would vote for it. It's the Union of European Socialist Republics, otherwise known as the EU that I have a problem with.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Ah yes, I was referring to the Common Market (or EEC) really, but the European Parliament has been in existence for over 50 years.

I think one of the problems most of us have is that the damn thing is just so complicated, only university professors understand how it works.

PS the Maastricht treaty was in 1993

[Silk]

I voted for 100% of the system that appoints both civil service and supreme court, and if we had major problems with either the UK people could vote in those who could / would change it - we can't do that with the EU as we are not the full constituency...

So where do you want to stop your power play? England? Your county? Your town? House?
What makes "The uk" the right level of control, rather than something smaller or larger?

The main problem is we have very little in common with the rest of Europe. The fact that we speak a different language sees to most of that. The USA works largely because they have a common language and culture - they are all Americans together. With Europe, that isn't the case. Just look what happens when one of the states of the EU, such as Greece, gets into bother - the rest of states don't give a toss. That wouldn't be the case with the USA.

How can you accept being told what to do by people who would need a translator in order to do so?

[Silk]

Ah yes, I was referring to the Common Market (or EEC) really, but the European Parliament has been in existence for over 50 years.

I think one of the problems most of us have is that the damn thing is just so complicated, only university professors understand how it works.

PS the Maastricht treaty was in 1993

It was signed in December 1991. It just took a while for the various nations to agree to it - that's where your 1993 come in. I'll await a university professor to tell us we're both wrong. That's how bloody stupid it is.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

According to Wikipedia, it was signed in February 1992 Drafted, signed, ratified, bla bla bla .... at any rate it marked the beginning of our subjection to European rule, it seems

[waremark]

The question to answer is whether we are better off as part of a larger country called Europe or a smaller country called England (other parts of the UK being liable to be hives off if we exit the EU).

We are not today a sovereign nation. The referendum is about whether to revert to being one.

Personally, I prefer not to be part of the country of Europe which I perceive to be badly managed, not to share as many cultural links or economic interests with us as other countries, and to have poor growth prospects.

Unlike others voting the same way as me, I am broadly happy with the level of immigration from European countries, and I don't see the EU as being any less democratic than the UK.