EU Referendum

[hatter76]

And as for this:
An extraordinary observation!   So what's that happening in Syria?  And Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Yemen?  And Pakistan?  And Libya?  And too many more blood-soaked war zones to mention! 

What's your point Dave, the above are not in NATO and do not have nuclear weapons which is what I was referring to in my previous post. They are able to have conflicts based on the old rules of engagement. I am specifically talking about advanced European nations.

To turn your point around what has the EU done to stop these conflicts that you mention?

[Dave]

Condate, we've had the EU (or it's forerunners) since 1946, and as I said in a previous post, as a result we have had the longest period of peace among the main nations of Western Europe since the Roman Empire.  As they say in America, 'go figure'!

And as for this:

The real reason for peace in Europe is NATO and the nuclear deterrent.

As only two of the 28 countries in the EU have nuclear weapons, it's hard to see how that could be the reason for seventy years of peace! 

If you start a war the consequence are massive with threat of nuclear wipe out. This greatly reduces the prospect of wars.

An extraordinary observation!   So what's that happening in Syria?  And Iraq? And Afghanistan? And Yemen?  And Pakistan?  And Libya?  And too many more blood-soaked war zones to mention! 

As for Russ's theory that the EU has caused the decline in UK manufacturing, there's no evidence for that.  What there is all too much evidence for is that much European manufacturing has gone to China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia etc, where labour costs are a fraction of those in developed countries.  The problem is globalisation, but it's not going to be easy to put that genie back in the bottle!   

[hatter76]

Ridiculous to say that the EU has brought about peace. The real reason for peace in Europe is NATO and the nuclear deterrent.

 In pre world war history if you were a ruler and wanted territory or wealth all you needed to do was raise an army of men and send them into battle. If you lost, all it cost you was several thousand men and a few horses. Today due to technology this option isn't open to you. If you start a war the consequence are massive with threat of nuclear wipe out. This greatly reduces the prospect of wars.

Other countries outside of the EU that are similar to the UK such as Canada and Australia haven't started wars. I like Russ believe that being in the EU greatly increases the likelihood of us getting involved in a conflict that has nothing to with us.

The EU would be replaced by free trade treaties and a sort of confederation similar to the commonwealth.

[CllrGeoffAbell]

The only reason I am replying is that I met a woman today who said she is not voting in the referendum.    Why?  I'm old, she said, and the future should be decided by those younger than me.  It's their inheritance.  Not heard that before.  But it echoes what Kevin said. 

So spot on both Kevin  and Dave.


Russ - unemployment, economy and taxation is really under the remit of national governments, and sometimes not even them.   In the 60s and 70s wildcat strikes (it was known as the "English Disease") did cause economic problems.  Remember the 3-day working week?  But at the same time the difference between rich and poor was at its lowest, whereas now it's getting worse.  The 80s recession and more recently the banking crisis were the reasons for unemployment crossing 10% of the labour force.  In a free economy, you will never get 0% unemployment.  At least it's not a criminal office as it was hundreds of years ago.  OK I am going off -topic and "philosophical" as someone said in another post.

Everything can be made better - EU, UK, Stockport and Marple.  I only have a (small) influence on the latter two.  But I have a bigger influence as part with others, whether it's buses, potholes or parks whether officers or political allies. 

History, Condate, history.  Unfettered nation states can be selfish and greedy.  And that leads to conflict.  What would you replace the EU with to keep your peace?

[simonesaffron]

I actually agree with K.C. and Dave.

The only point I agree with Condate in your very eloquent post, is that if U.K. exits it will be the first of many

[Condate]

Absolute nailhead hitting post which makes THE CARDINAL POINT. The deunification of federal Europe would undoubtedly result in our sons and grandsons stepping blindly into the same devastating warring conflicts that our fathers and grandfathers stepped blindly into. Arguments about trade, economics, democracy et al, are all peripheral to Dave's fundamental point. These conflicts devastate economic structures, cultures, nations in an eyeblink. Surely our children and grandchildren who are much more sophisticated and intelligent than we are, will not be led blindly by foolish angry old men and women who are nursing a reactionary grievance, into thinking there is any other progressive course of action that to stay European.       

I actually think the opposite is the case. The existence of the EU is more of a danger to peace than a proper Europe of states which while recognising their common history and culture and to a large extent interdependence, also recognises the dangers of trying to create a unified EU based not on what brings us together, but rather on ideas and practices which are not in real interests of any of the states.

What is certainly true is that both in and out supporters want a peaceful and prosperous Europe (and of course Europe is bigger than the EU) and both sides see peace and cooperation as vital. They differ about whether the EU is the right way to do it, but both sides see peace and cooperation as essential and both sides see conflict and hostility as extremely bad.

Both sides see the wars and conflicts of the past as something which must never happen again and there is no reason why Britain leaving the EU (which I hope will be just the first exit of many) should lead to such conflicts.

[K.C.Dowling]

Two reasons for staying in.

1.   We have had seventy years of peace between the member states of the EU (and its predecessor organisations) since it was founded after the devastation of the 20th century's two world wars.  That is the longest period of peace between these countries for two thousand years.  This has not happened by accident, and it certainly cannot be guaranteed to continue unless we all strive to stay together.  That means working within the EU to make it better and more accountable, not storming out and slamming the door. 

2.   Brexit would be irrevocable.  If we leave we will stay out for ever.  If we are in we can always decide to leave. 

For me these reasons override everything else which is being said and written on this issue - especially all the economic and financial stuff, which is pure speculation.     

Absolute nailhead hitting post which makes THE CARDINAL POINT. The deunification of federal Europe would undoubtedly result in our sons and grandsons stepping blindly into the same devastating warring conflicts that our fathers and grandfathers stepped blindly into. Arguments about trade, economics, democracy et al, are all peripheral to Dave's fundamental point. These conflicts devastate economic structures, cultures, nations in an eyeblink. Surely our children and grandchildren who are much more sophisticated and intelligent than we are, will not be led blindly by foolish angry old men and women who are nursing a reactionary grievance, into thinking there is any other progressive course of action that to stay European.

       

[Russ]

How many of us can remember growing up in '60s with virtually full employment, the only people out of work were those that chose that lifestyle.
The country was very prosperous & we were all happy bunnies back then. What went wrong?

We joined the EU in '73, by '79 it had all gone down the pan & we had massive unemployment like we'd never known. Work was never the same again, it went from happiness to bitching & backstabbing as people fought to keep their jobs in the next wave of redundancies.

We don't know if this had anything to do with joining the EU, or not, but life has certainly changed since.
Did a lot of our manufacturing industries disappear, only to reappear in other EU countries?
Millions of our highly skilled people on the scrapheap or earning low wages doing menial work. Leaves very little opportunity for the unskilled of us.
As many as 3 - 4 million people at its worst all scrapping for work, all capable of the menial jobs, so who suffered. The figures were, & probably still are far worse than published. A lot of the non-working are hidden in education & courses where they are removed from the count along with people out of work but not allowed job seekers. The figures being  very much statistically manipulated by our leaders.

How much of all this is due to losing our industry to other EU countries? Will we ever know?

[Dave]

Interesting questions.  I can't pretend to have all the answers, though I guess in the case of Switzerland it's down to the country's long history of independence and neutrality.

Norway has twice voted (narrowly) in referendums to stay out.  It's probably got something to do with fishing, and also with oil, coupled with a feeling that as they are already so prosperous outside the EU, why change anything.

As for the Channel Islands, IOM, Monaco etc, I think tax may just have something to do with it.........

And as for Russia, and some of the others listed at the end of Russ's post, one of the so-called Copenhagen criteria for membership is that member states must have 'stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities'................... Hmmmm.   

[Russ]

The EU, 28 countries are in & 22 countries are out, wonder why, if it's such a grand place to be, why aren't wealthy countries like Norway, Jersey, IOM, Monaco & Switzerland clamouring to join. Then Russia not allowed?


Non-members of EU
Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Gibraltar (UK territory), Guernsey, Iceland, Isle of Man (UK territory), Jersey (UK territory), Liechtenstein, Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Vatican City.

[Dave]

Two reasons for staying in.

1.   We have had seventy years of peace between the member states of the EU (and its predecessor organisations) since it was founded after the devastation of the 20th century's two world wars.  That is the longest period of peace between these countries for two thousand years.  This has not happened by accident, and it certainly cannot be guaranteed to continue unless we all strive to stay together.  That means working within the EU to make it better and more accountable, not storming out and slamming the door. 

2.   Brexit would be irrevocable.  If we leave we will stay out for ever.  If we are in we can always decide to leave. 

For me these reasons override everything else which is being said and written on this issue - especially all the economic and financial stuff, which is pure speculation.     

[marplerambler]

The huge influx of people wanting out of their own countries instead of staying & fighting for their rights, their country, their homes & their families, need housing, monetary support, education & NHS care. I see them all being placed in areas that are already under so much strain they have become ghetto's & no-go areas.
I see none of these problems in places like the Cotswolds where the people live who impose these issues on the already overcrowded problem areas. The places where the decision makers have their holiday homes don't appear to be affected either. Very strange.

I don't see too many of the above problems in Marple - the main problem i.e. ensuring the future of the NHS has a very simple solution - vote any party but Conservative!

[JohnBates]

I really don't think that's the issue at all. I want to leave the EU and like so many other people I know who want to leave, I very much want to get on with other European nations (and I do consider the UK very much as a European nation and very much part of the future of Europe). To imply that people who support leaving the EU want conflict is I believe misleading. Like a vast number of those who will vote to leave, I consider myself pro-European. Europe is not the EU and the EU is not the true Europe and there is no contradiction between being pro-European and being anti-EU.

Very much agree with this. Anti EU is not anti Europe. The UK needs to be facing out to the whole world (including europe), not inwards just to Europe.

[Russ]

Do we want to be the No.1 dumping ground for not only Europe's problems but all of the third Worlds problems as well. The buck stops here in the UK.

Do we want to be ruled by laws decided in Brussels by a huge vastly expensive organisation trying to justify their enormous cost by imposing laws on us that are making our lives ever worse.
The human rights bill we suffer has become nothing less than a licence to print money for our unscrupulous legal profession.

How long can our infrastructure  continue with all the current freedom of movement & the benefits that go with it, before it collapses or we are all taxed to the hilt in a vain attempt to support it.

The huge influx of people wanting out of their own countries instead of staying & fighting for their rights, their country, their homes & their families, need housing, monetary support, education & NHS care. I see them all being placed in areas that are already under so much strain they have become ghetto's & no-go areas.
I see none of these problems in places like the Cotswolds where the people live who impose these issues on the already overcrowded problem areas. The places where the decision makers have their holiday homes don't appear to be affected either. Very strange.

Being in or out, it isn't that simple, we need extensive planning & thinking about how we can move forward from the mess we have been forced into by uninspiring bureaucrats.

I am all for a united Europe in many ways but I would like to think we ruled our own country & our laws were decided by our own people. At present we are ruled from Brussels with just a few puppets on show here.

Just my opinion, each to their own.

[hatter76]

What do the Outies want?  A return to LSD?  Empire?

Churchill himself said in the middle of the war, ‘Hard as it is to say now... I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.’


At this stage, it's fundamentally about "Do we want to get on with the other European nations?"  Or do we want conflict?

So I am for In.

But either way, there will probably be another referendum in 41 years time.  We do live in a democracy after all.

To say that people who want out want a return to empire and conflict is a shocking and untrue statement. The only empire in Europe is the EU with its never ending expansionist plans, Ukraine, Turkey etc. This has humiliated Russia, strengthened Putin and is leading us back into another cold war. It also brings the EU land border up to Iraq and Syria, not the most stable places at the moment.

I would argue that the best way to reduce conflict is through trade and mutual respect not by creating a superstate with an expansionist agenda. The Treaty of Rome and subsequent ones such as Maastricht and Lisbon commit us to an ever closer union and YES an EU army in the future.

As has already been well pointed out Europe and the EU are two different things. We will get on with other European countries after independence and be a peaceful nation within NATO.

Vote out