The EU - Leave or Remain?

[jont-]

do we want to be run by those we elect and can choose to remove every 5 years, or nameless unelected mandarins in Europe, I suspect that for many this will be the basis for voting

I'm not sure how westminster is any more accountable than europe. As for nameless, I wonder what proportion of the UK electorate can name their current MP? We pissed away any chance of electoral reform with the last abortion of a referendum (like choosing whether you'd rather have your eye put out with a blunt stick or a rusty spoon). Manifesto promises are just lies to get into power, thrown away as soon as you get there, with no legal standing why do parties even bother? At least Europe seems to stand up for individual rights and privacy, which is more than Westminster can manage. And I don't see Westminster rushing to investigate abusive practices by large companies such as microsoft or google (but of course that would put MPs cushy post westminster non-exec jobs at risk, wouldn't it )

[ChristianAB]

Sadly I think it is probably wrong to have had a referendum at all... I would like to see the UK with a strong voice in the EU, but if we vote remain I think it puts us in a weak negotiating position within the EU as we no longer have the threat of leaving...

Now that we are having a referendum - I think that most of the economics discussion is an irrelevance, as is immigration - for both we could choose any approach either in or out... I think the main debate now is around sovereignty, do we want to be run by those we elect and can choose to remove every 5 years, or nameless unelected mandarins in Europe, I suspect that for many this will be the basis for voting

Alasdair

I'm not British and this is not my country, but I have to say that I don't even understand how people here are not voting leave by default. In my native african country, we never got a real taste for democracy and thus the thought that citizens of the UK could willingly relinquish their sovereignty into the hands of a gigantic European bureaucracy is...perplexing.
I like the idea of the European Union. But the reality of Brussels is something else. Much better to way until Europe proves that it can function properly and only then, join. But then again, I am not British, and this is not my country.

[Silk]

I'm not British and this is not my country, but I have to say that I don't even understand how people here are not voting leave by default. In my native african country, we never got a real taste for democracy and thus the thought that citizens of the UK could willingly relinquish their sovereignty into the hands of a gigantic European bureaucracy is...perplexing.
I like the idea of the European Union. But the reality of Brussels is something else. Much better to way until Europe proves that it can function properly and only then, join. But then again, I am not British, and this is not my country.

It probably depends on how your life is going. If you're relatively well off and life is easy, then I can see how you would want things to stay pretty much the way they are and see any change as a threat. That's what "project fear" is all about, and it's the reason it's highly unlikely we will end up leaving the EU, IMO.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

I started off thinking "remain" but am veering more and more towards "leave". My thoughts initially were along the lines of "we've spent 40 years achieving the position in Europe we have now, it'd be silly to throw that all away", but the more I think about it, the more I think "what position?". We're continually outvoted by the German/French alliance, who really rule Europe, we are a net contributor to the EU to the tune of over £4 billion p/a, and I struggle to see how we're actually at any trade advantage with EU countries apart from things like VAT, which would be a tit-for-tat arrangement anyway. On the other hand, we're hamstrung when it comes to making trade agreements outside the EU, the open borders situation works mainly against us, an overcrowded country with low natural resources and high prices already. The "remain" arguments seem to concentrate mainly on fear and superstition - the economy will crash (why?), our defences will be compromised (how?), house prices will rise (really? how did you work that one out?) and so on. No cogent, literate, or fact-backed argument, versus a clear view of an economic deficit (likely to be increased as more and more poor Eastern European countries jump on the EU bandwagon), a federal parliament imposing laws on us with no power of veto, and restrictive trade agreements handcuffing our small, smart businesses. What is there to actually like about Europe?

[GTR1400MAN]

The real question is: If we were not already part of the EU, knowing what you know now (however much/little), would you want to join? Do you see enough benefits to vote yes (remain)? Or are there enough negatives to make you want to steer well clear (leave)?

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Steer well clear for me. Despite deploring the tone of the "Leave" pamphlet that came through the door yesterday with its headlines of "these are the facts" when they patently weren't facts, but opinions, that question was very telling. If we were offered the choice to join now, would we? What possible incentive would there be in it for us?

[Gareth]

My thoughts have tended towards leave, tinged with a fair degree of sadness. I very much like the idea of a common trading area, which was what the country was originally sold, but the reality has turned out to be a bit different and, clearly, some people have wanted the whole of Europe to move towards becoming a single country.

I'm not persuaded by the arguments around economics or migration.

For economics, our net contribution is small beer in terms of a proportion of GDP and, anyway, what the experts seem to be arguing about is not whether we'd be worse off than we are now if we were to leave the European Union, so much as whether the country will grow to a lesser or a greater extent. It seems to me the pressures from European countries to continue to sell goods and services to the UK will, to some extent, mean they'll be less likely to erect significant trade barriers against us selling goods and services to them. Trade isn't a one-way street, and seems unlikely to be so if we leave.

Regarding migration, it seems to me that our governments have been happy with people coming to work here since it 'grows the economy', but I'm not sure that economic growth resulting from migration is the same as growth from becoming more efficient, or finding ways to harness modern technology to find better ways to produce goods. I reckon in the short to medium term, at least, the UK will still want people from other countries to work here - it might be that peoples from countries outside the EU will be welcomed instead.

When I was a lot younger I thought that, for safety in a modern world, we absolutely needed to be part of a larger structure. Now I am much less certain that's the case. Perhaps leaving the EU is the riskier option but I'm not sure that we should be turning away from a proposition that has greater uncertainty for that reason alone.

[Strangely Brown]

Now that we are having a referendum - I think that most of the economics discussion is an irrelevance, as is immigration - for both we could choose any approach either in or out... I think the main debate now is around sovereignty, do we want to be run by those we elect and can choose to remove every 5 years, or nameless unelected mandarins in Europe, I suspect that for many this will be the basis for voting

DIng! We have a winner.

This is actually the ONLY issue. Everything else discussed in the campaigns, either in or out, ultimately comes down to the question of the supremacy of parliament. We can only control our own destiny if we actually have the power to remove/change those in charge.

[jont-]

Now that we are having a referendum - I think that most of the economics discussion is an irrelevance, as is immigration - for both we could choose any approach either in or out... I think the main debate now is around sovereignty, do we want to be run by those we elect and can choose to remove every 5 years, or nameless unelected mandarins in Europe, I suspect that for many this will be the basis for voting

DIng! We have a winner.

This is actually the ONLY issue. Everything else discussed in the campaigns, either in or out, ultimately comes down to the question of the supremacy of parliament. We can only control our own destiny if we actually have the power to remove/change those in charge.

I'm going to quote Douglas Adams again.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”

We only really have a vote if you happen to believe in the policies of either of the two major parties. /just look at the fraction of the vote UKIP received at the last election compared to the number of seats they won - you can do the same with the SNP too. Then try and convince me we have fair representation, never mind the chance of having a government from neither of the two major parties.

[sussex2]

Our democracy in the UK is weak; probably the weakest of any country I visit regularly.

We have over 700 people entitled to sit in Parliament and introduce Bills who have never been elected. These include (amazing to me in the 21st century) priests from the state sponsored religion.
We do not elect our Head of State and in order to have any chance of being that, you have to marry into one particular family. If you are a Catholic even this is not possible.
We elect only a small percentage of our Mayors.
At the last General Election a party with less that 30 percent of the vote managed to form a majority government - far far from democratic.

Most important, we do not have a properly written constitution setting out the rights and responsibilities of the government and, crucially, the people; this alone makes us vulnerable and in my opinion very much so.

We are seeing the beginning of a new wave of fascism which is being whipped up by popular press owned by billionaires who have no loyalty to the country and pay little or no tax. I believe this is highly dangerous, far more so than many people seem to realise.

For the reasons above I strongly believe we need other sets of eyes overseeing us.

We should remain as a major player in one of the most advanced group of different states in the world.