And the out lunacy starts:

Iain Duncan Smith says staying in the EU exposes the UK to a greater threat of terrorism.   
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35624409

Quote: Staying in the EU will make the UK more vulnerable to Paris-style terrorist attacks, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has told the BBC.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 50):

He's absolutely right, EU's inability to protect its borders has very much increased the terror threat towards all member states.

Quoting vc10 (Reply 49): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 46): EU immigrants who do not go looking seriously for work and just want to live of welfare can and will be deported. This has been cleared by the European Court of Justice. What do you do if when they get to their home country , they just get on a bus and return to Germany. Keep sending them home.

Their names and identities will be recorded. Do you think that they will get away with applying at a social welfare office again?
Here in Germany youneed to register wizh the community you reside in. They at least require a biometric passport picture.
Only if you have a fixed adress can you apply for social welfare. The data of deportees will be registered in a federal database.

Jan

Quoting vc10 (Reply 43): 1] The decisions of the Court of Human Rights is some times blamed on the EU . However even if we left the EU this court would still apply to the UK as it has nothing to do with the EU, but it would seem a lot of people do not understand this

Something I read the other day, which surprised me and will NOT be in the Daily Mail, Express or the Sun, 98% of the cases there involving the UK, the UK government won them.
Shit, the UK government don't get near that with our own courts!

Quoting vc10 (Reply 43): 3] Internal immigration within the EU has to be addressed as here in the UK we have between 2 and 3 million EU immigrants . It all depends on which figure you wish to believe, but it is agreed by all that there are 750,000 thousand immigrants from Poland. Now who can complain about immigrants as they sometimes bring great benefits to their new country, but when so many arrive in so short a time it is impossible to assimilate them . This is the biggest problem I believe the UK population has with the EU, but the EU refuses to address it

This is a real issue, however I can name two other nations with a higher level of immigration in Europe, who are not EU member states, one is Norway and the other the Swiss - who of course are a people and nation not much engaged in multinational organisations at all.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 50): And the out lunacy starts: Iain Duncan Smith says staying in the EU exposes the UK to a greater threat of terrorism.

Friends in the Civil Service assure me that reports of him being the thickest member of the government are if anything, toned down.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 51): He's absolutely right, EU's inability to protect its borders has very much increased the terror threat towards all member states.

The UK is not in Schengen. The EU is to be blamed for a lot of things, but the islamisation of the UK, manifested among other things by increased risk of terrorism, is very much self-inflicted. No one in Brussels forces the UK authorities to hand out British passports to everyone and their third cousin from Lag¿os or Lahore. I would say the UK is more of a a security liability for the rest of Europe than více versa.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37): One of them is biting the hand that feeds. The other is not.

Some debt movements and money creation isn't very nourishing.

Quoting vc10 (Reply 43): Now I think there is a lot of good within the EU, however there is also too much attention given to each countries individual political needs rather than the needs of the population as a whole

The UK is the worst offender, are we not discussing its individual needs instead of the needs of the union's population as a whole ?

Quoting vc10 (Reply 47): Thanks for the information , which was very enlightening. The only problem is that our system in many ways is more generous to it's citizens than perhaps yours, but we seem to have to give it to any body from the rest of Europe just to appease the EU political masters in the EU. It is this sort of thing that upsets people here in the UK, but perhaps you would say that is the price of belonging to the club, but every club considers it rules and changes them now and then.

As MD11 explained, the problem is that the UK system needs to be revamped to tackle the problem. UK politicians say they're tied to the EU rules and can't do anything, but that's BS. They'd rather talk than work, is the problem.

I've seen one of the out proponents (a cabinet member I think) talk again about thousands of rules for the size of vegetables etc., that stifle the economy. Every country has such rules, with the EU they're the same rules in 28 countries. If the UK gets out and can change their rules, what will the benefits be ? They won't be able to sell stuff that isn't to the EU standards outside the UK proper, so they won't change anything, and just won't have any say in the making of the rules.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 54): I would say the UK is more of a a security liability for the rest of Europe than více versa.

Indeed for decades islamists were left doing their hate preaching in the UK, many came from France or North Africa where they were "persecuted". Still today the UK accepts things that are unthinkable here, like sharia courts, accepting demands for female doctors in hospitals, special hospital burqas, etc.

Quoting Rara (Reply 3): His "historic breakthrough" is largely a joke, orchestrated in close collaboration with his colleagues who were kind of enough to pretend and "negotiate through the night" even though it was clear from the beginning that the whole thing is just for show.

I also believe Cameron will rig the vote in order to stay in.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):

I could see Spain and Portugal running a scare campaign to tell Brits if the UK leaves so do you (but not really intendiding to do it) Can we say another housing crash?

Quoting Rara (Reply 33):

Norway is not in the EU in fact voted twice not join it.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 28): Money mainly, I'm not particularly rich. Otherwise I would have already bought a nice villa from some Pacific island and moved there permanently.

You don't need to be rich to buy a villa in Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands to name a few.

Quoting Rara (Reply 33): Norway should leave the EU ASAP.

As you well know Norway isn't a member but we follow just about all the EU regulations, we're like Washington DC, no representation, I'd actually rather Norway was a member, than the current situation.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 57): Norway is not in the EU in fact voted twice not join it.

That was his point !

If the referendum says the British people want to remain in the EU, and the EU parliment says it's not going to honour the agreement made by the European leaders.

Whats to stop the UK passing a national sovereignty act that could block any unwanted diktat, and states that national parliaments have primacy?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 51): He's absolutely right, EU's inability to protect its borders has very much increased the terror threat towards all member states.

Oh, you're still here.

Given the UK isn't in Schengen, being in or out of the EU makes about zero difference to the UK's security situation.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 54): I would say the UK is more of a a security liability for the rest of Europe than více versa.

Of course.   

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55): Still today the UK accepts things that are unthinkable here, like sharia courts

There are no "Sharia courts" in the UK.   
http://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55): accepting demands for female doctors in hospitals

How is this an issue? Any woman can ask for a female doctor, my wife often does.

Quoting winterlight (Reply 56): I also believe Cameron will rig the vote in order to stay in.

How exactly can anyone, let alone the PM, rig a referendum vote in the UK? Complete and utter paranoia and conspiracy theory territory.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55):

Sadly France has a mega Islamist problem as we saw all too recently when French citizens were gunned down in Paris. These people are living in various districts in Paris and indeed all over France. Also Belgium but France seems to be a hot bed and another attack is a matter of time .

Quoting scbriml (Reply 61): How exactly can anyone, let alone the PM, rig a referendum vote in the UK?

Fairly easily. A secret PM directive to the head of the UK electoral agency [I assume]. Of course keeping it a secret could be a problem! But it would only require Cameron, the head & one or two COMPETENT programmers to do it.

Gemuser

Quoting scbriml (Reply 61): How exactly can anyone, let alone the PM, rig a referendum vote in the UK? Complete and utter paranoia and conspiracy theory territory.

They can't rig it 100%, but it could certainly go in his favour with a little help. There has been widespread fraud with postal voting in previous UK elections.

We seem to be doing well so far for being not an EU country. Some of you think the UK will turn to a third world country because of a likely increased economical burden, and the UK is in a much stronger position than we are.

Quoting ZKOJQ (Reply 45): Indeed. Expect him to dump a ton of money into the coffers of the Leave campaign. An increasingly divided Europe is exactly what Putin wants. Together we stand against him, divided we fall and all that.

Putin maybe destabilizing the ME, but the EU is the one and only creating a divide between european countries, because national sovereignty means nothing to Brussels. Hundreds of millions of people have to follow the mindset of a few whether they want or not.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 61): There are no "Sharia courts" in the UK

Quote from your link: "Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters, although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts."

1. The fact that you have "councils" is worrying enough.

2. Like they care about "regular courts".

IMHO, it's time for the Brits to get off the chair and deal with your muslim problem areas. Hate preaching on the street, ghettos, radical islamists protesting, terror attacks, radicalization. Subway terror attack, the most famous foreign jihadist and behadings in the streets of London - all related to the UK. It's astounding how tolerant, blind and powerless the UK is towards this kind of people. Hitler was also taken as a joke in 1920.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37): One of them is biting the hand that feeds. The other is not. Some debt movements and money creation isn't very nourishing.

Still much more nourishing than giving away money and receiving refugees who will bludge off local taxpayers, create social problems and demand that the norms where they came from become the norms where they chose to end up...

[Edited 2016-02-21 23:18:17]

Quoting Aesma (Reply 59): That was his point !

His point was pointless because Norway follows every single EU rule and regulation, the NO campaigners did Norway a huge disservice, Norway is a defecto member but without representation.

The whole NO campaign is pointless, because as has been pointed out many many times, the idea you can somehow NOT follow the EU rules is wrong to start with: the market is so big, so important to Britain and so close by that a UK outside of the EU would have no other option but to follow all of its demands strictly and swiftly and to the letter, just like Norway or Switzerland do in Europe, or many other countries do with US rules.
The reality is the NO campaign doesn't want the UK out of the EU, they would want to abolish the EU itself: only then can they really do what they want and deliver what they promise.
Until then, the choice comes down to willing to have influence over EU decisions, or no influence over them.
Be a participant or a follower, but assimilation will come regardless.

Good decision to call the referendum asap: then this whole circus which has been on tour is finally closed down in less than 123 days, the lunies can be safely returned to the asylum and the show is over for the next 40 years again or so.  

Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 68): The reality is the NO campaign doesn't want the UK out of the EU, they would want to abolish the EU itself: only then can they really do what they want and deliver what they promise.

Exactly. Keep continental Europe divided.

Jan

SterlIng has taken a battering today over Brexit concerns.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 70): SterlIng has taken a battering today over Brexit concerns.

Which will be nothing compared to the battering it would take if we vote out.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9): Plus all the British expat retirees in their enclaves in Spain and portugal.

A majority (60-ish %) British citizens in Spain are not retirees (either working age or children)

So yeah, we could say a thing or two about those furriners straining the social and health services and all that.

As a business owner and 20 year resident of Portugal, it would be interesting to see where this puts us, as technically the treaty regime of which I reside under would no longer be valid. However, I would imagine that new treaties could be drawn up, as treaties existed long before the EEC/EC/EU was ever dreamed up, and I really don't see mass deportations across the continent in either direction.

I can't vote in this referendum anyway (we lose our right to vote after 15 years non residency). The pro-EU Brits here would probably be pleased that I can't anyway, if that gives a hint where my politics lie.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 73): However, I would imagine that new treaties could be drawn up, as treaties existed long before the EEC/EC/EU was ever dreamed up, and I really don't see mass deportations across the continent in either direction.

So instead of drawing a treaty with the EU as a whole from the inside, the UK would have to deal, individually, with 20-something other countries which would still be bound by EU laws and regulations. It's curious that some people see this as a chance to cut out the middleman when there's no such thing.

Honestly I don't see the gain, but more power to you.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 73): The pro-EU Brits here would probably be pleased that I can't anyway, if that gives a hint where my politics lie.

Having dealt with quite a few of your fellow citizens over here I can tell you the camp is split.

Older retirees pretty much agree with you, pretty vociferously I might add. People who do actual work though, do not, but they won't tell you if you don't ask them.

Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent? What if another country (Greece, for example) said "they got favorable terms, we want favorable terms too"? An a la carte membership kinda defeats the purpose of closer union. Instead, it's just a patchwork of common areas with gaps all over.

The domino effect it will have will also be felt if the "Exit" vote passes. Expect stock markets to take a beating and currencies to go all over the place.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 71): Which will be nothing compared to the battering it would take if we vote out.

The euro will also crumble. If the UK votes out, what's to stop other countries from doing the same? They could just ask for access to the common market, but retain control over their own policies (Spain, Greece, and Italy, for example, would benefit from having their own currencies to boost their economies).

If you have the time, I can recommend reading this very long report, commissioned by a British investment firm. The report covers the economic impact of a Brexit and is fully impartial, just stating their findings. I will copy and paste the summary from each section below:

Immigration:

Quote: Annual net migration from Europe has more than doubled since 2012, reaching 183,000 in March 2015. Immigration from the European Union is currently boosting the workforce by around 0.5% a year. This has helped support the economy’s ability to grow without pushing up wage growth and inflation, keeping interest rates lower for longer. Whether the United Kingdom gains any powers to restrict immigration from Europe will depend on its future relationship with the European Union. If Britain wanted to retain full access to the single market, it may have to keep the free movement of labour between the United Kingdom and the Union. But this is unlikely. Policy is far more likely to change to restrict the number of low skilled workers entering the country and shift towards attracting more highly skilled workers. This would be a potential headache for low-wage sectors heavily dependent on migrant labour, such as agriculture, but could benefit other sectors with a shortage of highly skilled labour. Overall, policy would shift to be more specifically designed for Britain’s migration requirements.

Trade and manufacturing industry:

Quote: Official trade statistics show that the European Union is the destination for about half of all British goods exports. The trading links are bigger if we include the countries that the United Kingdom trades freely with because they have a free trade agreement with the European Union. These agreements mean that 63% of Britain’s goods exports are linked to European Union membership. It is highly probable that a favourable trade agreement would be reached after Brexit as there are advantages for both sides in continuing a close commercial arrangement. But the worst-case scenario, in which Britain faces tariffs under ‘most-favoured nation’ rules, is certainly no disaster. Exporters would face some additional costs, such as complying with the European Union’s rules of origin, if they were outside the single market. However, these factors would be an inconvenience rather than a major barrier to trade. In addition, fears that exporters would be left high and dry the day after the Brexit vote are unfounded. Under the Lisbon Treaty, a country leaving the European Union has 2 years in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. In addition, falling tariffs, the decline in manufacturing and Europe’s diminishing importance in the global economy mean we doubt that even the absence of a trade deal with the European Union would hurt the United Kingdom’s overall exports materially. The benefits of being in the European Union are smaller than they were a few decades ago, when a Brexit would have been a far bigger deal. However, the effects will vary across sectors. Brexit would give Britain a crucial opportunity by allowing it to broker its own trade deals with non-European Union countries; indeed Britain could even have a unilateral free trade policy. Non-European Union countries may find negotiating with Britain easier and quicker than dealing with the European Union’s bureaucratic machine, as Switzerland has shown. The production sectors in the economy face a more uncertain outcome than services. The range of potential outcomes is more variable as production sectors are more dependent on whether or not the United Kingdom agrees a trading agreement with the European Union and the nature of any such agreement. The possibility of tariffs on goods exports to the European Union gives greater downside potential, while the opportunity to open up trade with other countries or to increase the sector’s competitiveness through greater competition or cheaper inputs gives it more upside potential. Contrary to the claims of many authors and commentators, it is probable that the impacts of Brexit on trade would be relatively small. Moreover, it is certainly possible that leaving the European Union would leave the external sector better off in the long run, if Britain could use its new found freedom to negotiate its own trading arrangements to good effect.

Financial services and the City:

Quote: Financial services have more to lose immediately after a European Union exit than most other sectors of the economy. Even in the best case, in which passporting rights were preserved, the United Kingdom would still lose influence over the single market’s rules. The City would probably be hurt in the short term, but it would not spell disaster. The City’s competitive advantage is founded on more than just unfettered access to the single market. A European Union exit would enable the United Kingdom to broker trade deals with emerging markets that could pay dividends for the financial services sector in the long run.

Regulation, innovation and productivity:

Quote: Brexit is only likely to have a limited impact on Britain’s productivity. The major potential for improvement comes from increased business investment which shows little connection with political developments. Estimates that axing European Union regulations would save Britain a lot of money exaggerate the true picture as the United Kingdom would still choose to implement many of them. It would also need to implement the union’s regulations to continue to export easily to the single market. Reduced regulation might give a small boost to productivity but wouldn’t be a game-changer.

Foreign investment:

Quote: Concerns about a drying up of foreign direct investment if Britain votes to leave the European Union are somewhat overblown. Access to the single market is not the only reason that firms invest in Britain. Other advantages to investing here should ensure that foreign firms continue to want a foothold in the country. It is likely Britain would remain a haven for foreign direct investment flows even if it was outside of the European Union. Of course, we could see a period of weak foreign direct investment inflows as the United Kingdom’s new relationship is renegotiated. However, if Britain is able to obtain favourable terms, then foreign direct investment would probably recoup this lost ground.

Public sector:

Quote: The British government could save about £10bn per year on its contributions to the European Union’s budget if the country left the bloc. This figure could be higher if either the British rebate was to be threatened in the years ahead or Brexit was to result in overall faster economic growth. On the other hand, a little economic disruption and lower migration as a result of Brexit could offset these savings. The government might also continue to make some contributions to the union if it wanted to preserve single market access, it might need to compensate sectors of the economy and specific regions that currently benefit from European Union handouts and it may have to sacrifice customs duties income to strike new trade deals with countries outside Europe. We expect that Brexit would benefit the public finances, but not to a huge degree.

Consumption and property market:

Quote: It seems clear that the City is the part of the British property market that has most to lose if the United Kingdom opts to leave the European Union. It is certainly possible to tell a story in which the damage done could be considerable, but the role of the financial services sector in holding up the property market is probably overstated, leading us to believe that any negative impacts will be small, certainly at a macroeconomic level. We anticipate that the impacts on the property market overall and on aggregate consumption in the economy will be limited. In the case of the latter, they may well be positive due to beneficial effects from independent policymaking on immigration, trade and regulation, as well as savings to the exchequer (which may then be disbursed in the form of lower taxes).

And the overall summary:

Quote: Although the impact of Brexit on the British economy is uncertain, we doubt that Britain’s long-term economic outlook hinges on it. Things have changed a lot since 1973, when joining the European Economic Community was a big deal for the United Kingdom. There are arguably much more important issues now, such as whether productivity will recover. The shortfall in British productivity relative to its pre-crisis trend is still over 10%, so regaining that lost ground would offset even the most negative of estimates of Brexit on the economy. Based on assessing the evidence, we conclude that: The more extreme claims made about the costs and benefits of Brexit for the British economy are wide of the mark and lacking in evidential bases. It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it is slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive. This is a strong conclusion when compared with some studies. There are potential net benefits in the areas of a more tailored immigration policy, the freedom to make trade deals, moderately lower levels of regulation and savings to the public purse. In each of these areas, we do not believe that the benefits of Brexit would be huge, but they are likely to be positive. Meanwhile, costs in terms of financial services, foreign direct investment and impacts on London property markets are more likely to be short-term and there are longer-term opportunities from Brexit even in these areas. It is not likely that any particular region or regions of the country would be more adversely affected by Brexit than the country overall. Likewise, we do find support for the notion that Brexit would benefit some sectors more than others, but the range of outcomes for production / manufacturing industries is probably wider than for services. We continue to think that the United Kingdom’s economic prospects are good whether inside or outside the European Union. Britain has pulled ahead of the European Union in recent years, and we expect that gap to widen over the next few years regardless of whether Brexit occurs.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 75): The euro will also crumble. If the UK votes out, what's to stop other countries from doing the same? They could just ask for access to the common market, but retain control over their own policies

Access to a common market is basically the same as giving up some control over policies. Depending on how integrated the market is, you'll have to give up control over customs and tariffs, trade policy, industrial policy, anti-cartel, tax policy and so on. It's in those matters that EU institutions have full control. In other policy fields (like security, foreign policy, education and so on) the EU has only mostly coordinating functions.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 75): Spain, Greece, and Italy, for example, would benefit from having their own currencies to boost their economies

If that were so easy, they would never have joined the Euro. In short: having their own currency could make their economies more competitive, but it would also make their currency less stable and expropriate their consumers / small savers.

Quoting Rara (Reply 77): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 75): Spain, Greece, and Italy, for example, would benefit from having their own currencies to boost their economies If that were so easy, they would never have joined the Euro. In short: having their own currency could make their economies more competitive, but it would also make their currency less stable and expropriate their consumers / small savers.

I don't think countries would have imagined the nightmare scenario they're facing right now with a common currency. Yes, at the time the currencies were fixed against one another they were all performing swell...but that was before the '08 recession hit, and before looser controls would have helped the economies recover faster. How do you balance the interests of 18 countries when some are performing way better than others?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 78): balance the interests of 18 countries when some are performing way better than others?

OK, biut imagine the conversion losses on payments in a single market when Puerto Rico has Pesos, Texas has Lone Star $ and Illinois and Wisconsin Marks, just to mention a few, and all have different outside values.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 79): OK, biut imagine the conversion losses on payments in a single market when Puerto Rico has Pesos, Texas has Lone Star $ and Illinois and Wisconsin Marks, just to mention a few, and all have different outside values.

And last time i checked the economic disparity in the US was not a bit less, actually a fraction higher, than within the EU.

I think the problem, if there is any problem caused by the EURO, is that the EURO isn´t mandantory to take part in the single market.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 78): I don't think countries would have imagined the nightmare scenario they're facing right now with a common currency.

I'm not sure it's all that nighmarish. Take the Greeks for instance; they could have left the Euro and they would have received a de-facto debt cut on top of it. Yet they chose to stay in.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 78): How do you balance the interests of 18 countries when some are performing way better than others?

That's still the ultimate question of the Euro. It's still unanswered. If the Greeks (and the other Southern European countries) pull through, the answer might be: citizens of countries with lower productivity will have to pay by receiving less social services and benefits. If the Eurozone breaks apart after all, the answer will be: balancing the interest of 18 different countries proved impossible, experiment failed.

Well the current lower value of the Euro that France was clamoring for since at least 2012 has greatly helped balance things out. If it's a bit below optimal for some countries, and a bit too high for others, then its good. When it was high for everyone, something was wrong. Of course the cause was not just Merkel but also the Fed and Abenomics.

Funny....almost looks and feels like the Colonies 200+ years ago...."Do we want to be united or not?"....Not sure how a Democratic Union can seperate the politics from the economics....can't have one without the other....ahem...UK.....

Quoting bhill (Reply 83): Funny....almost looks and feels like the Colonies 200+ years ago...."Do we want to be united or not?"....Not sure how a Democratic Union can seperate the politics from the economics....can't have one without the other....ahem...UK.....

EU's status as a democracy is highly questionable.

Quoting vc10 (Reply 43): The problem with the EU from the British point of view lies with the following

I think it kind of boils down to the fact that the UK is the most capitalist, individualist (or American-style if you like) of any EU nation.

In other words, let each man fend for himself is a more typical British attitude than the mindset of the EU which is something like, 'let's share our problems and our rewards equally, with a consensus set of rules we will all obey.'




Pu.

Quoting Rara (Reply 81): If the Eurozone breaks apart after all, the answer will be: balancing the interest of 18 different countries proved impossible, experiment failed.

Lessons learned: currency unions need more work.

But the cost of such experiment will be heavily felt in Europe.

Quoting Rara (Reply 81): Take the Greeks for instance; they could have left the Euro and they would have received a de-facto debt cut on top of it. Yet they chose to stay in.

Because there's no formal exit mechanism for leaving the Euro. It's not written anywhere. The only way you leave is by leaving the EU (which is something Greece didn't need to do). It's like saying that having a small infection at the tip of a finger requires cutting off your entire hand to survive (a very drastic move). Of course, Greece leaving not just the Euro but the EU would have placed the entire EU at risk of falling apart. Yes, Greece was a small percentage of the total EU economy, but imagine if Italy and/or Spain felt the pressure and followed suit?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 86): But the cost of such experiment will be heavily felt in Europe.

We have enjoyed more than 70 consecutive years of freedom in central Europe. The benefits outweigh the costs of uniting Europe by far.

Quoting Pu (Reply 85): In other words, let each man fend for himself is a more typical British attitude

Cute position considering that they finance all social services with tax income if i am not mistaken. They seem to be fairly social. They had the first codified welfare system worldwide in 1597.
The UK has been pretty progressive on all fronts.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 87): We have enjoyed more than 70 consecutive years of freedom in central Europe. The benefits outweigh the costs of uniting Europe by far.

  

best regards
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 88): They had the first codified welfare system worldwide in 1597.

Yes, Elizabeth I was a very progressive Queen for her day!   

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 87): We have enjoyed more than 70 consecutive years of freedom in central Europe. The benefits outweigh the costs of uniting Europe by far.

How has Central Europe enjoyed more than 70 years of freedom ?, I seem to recall that its only 25 years since the Iron Curtain disappeared.

There's an awful lot of scaremongering going on n the UK at present with wild claims being made by the Europhiles. One is that our military security for many decades is down to the EU, personally I thought it was down to NATO, but there you go.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 90): There's an awful lot of scaremongering going on n the UK at present with wild claims being made by the Europhiles.

That's rather amusing to read after going through the Europhobe list of all evils caused by the EU.

Points about the EU as I see it are :-

1] If we left we would have to comply with all their rules, without a seat at the table, and that is true , but it is also true that we have to comply with the rules of the USA , China and every other country that we perhaps export to.

2] We would not survive outside of the EU. Well other countries bigger and smaller than the UK do. Now admittedly they are not sitting on the border of the EU, but neither is China and look how much she exports to the EU.Now this might be allowed because of the huge amount of goods from the EU she imports, but on a much smaller scale so does the UK. In fact so I understand the UK imports much more from the EU than she exports.

3] As to the suggestion that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for some 70 years now, well I think that is more to do with most of the countries in Europe being exhausted and bankrupt after the 2 nd world war, and the huge military cover that the USA gave Europe during that time , and it is about time this was recognized by some of you.

As an aside to this point, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars as far as I know there was peace in Europe for the next 55 years [ if you would be kind enough to overlook the Crimean War ] and there was no EU then.

4] As to this great European democracy that is suggested that the EU is, well lets just remember that the recent Balkan wars all started when Germany recognized Croatia,so starting the Domino affect, Also the recent ongoing refugee problem was made worst when Germany she would take all who came until they all did. In neither case did Germany consult the other members of this democratic EU. Now in the case of the refugees once they settle legally in Germany then they can move anywhere in the EU so perhaps it would of been nice if the other countries were asked before Germany made the offer.

Now it might surprise many of you but I quite like the EU , but the way it is set up at the moment there is no room in it for another large country such as the UK, because the power balance is already set with Germany and France and I am not saying this is wrong but rather the UK has trouble fitting in. Therefore I think we should leave whilst still being on friendly terms and co-operating with the EU on say common defence, environment, etc issues,

littlevc10

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 90): How has Central Europe enjoyed more than 70 years of freedom ?, I seem to recall that its only 25 years since the Iron Curtain disappeared.

There was a cold war between 1945 and 1990 but that was not actually a war.The cold war was a war of words in an otherwise peaceful time. I credit NATO as the biggest peace organisation for that, and that goes for the USA as well, without them it would not have been possible.. Without the hard stand against the Soviet Empire and without the twin track we would not have achieved that, probably. But the EU was and is the other pillar of that freedom. .

I agree with vc10 on most pof what he says in reply 92 including on what he says about Mrs. Merkel.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 93): There was a cold war between 1945 and 1990 but that was not actually a war.

I agree that there has not been a central European War for 70 years, but you used the word "freedom" that is very different, the Iron Curtain prevented freedom, most noticeably in Germany.

Quoting vc10 (Reply 92): 1] If we left we would have to comply with all their rules, without a seat at the table, and that is true , but it is also true that we have to comply with the rules of the USA , China and every other country that we perhaps export to.

This is the one part I find hardest to grasp. Why would we have to comply with all the EU rules, it isn't as if the EU Countries would suddenly refuse to supply us with goods, nor would their consumers decide to forgo their UK sourced items.
One example of this is the huge export market for shellfish from the UK to France, the market is huge as the French will pay premium prices for UK shellfish, will they suddenly decline their langoustine supper due to a UK withdrawal from the EU ? I've always thought it a very bad idea to get between a Frenchman and his lunch.

On the matter of air travel, much has been said about the benefits to passengers from EU open skies and that a UK withdrawal would result in travel from the UK to the EU reverting to the old high priced protected market. Those days are firmly over, the old protected flag carriers have either been broken up or transformed into multi national carriers. Is anyone seriously suggesting that in the event of a UK withdrawal from the EU flights between say LHR and MAD would be determined by a group of civil servants dictating flight times, aircraft sizes, seat numbers and APEX fares ?

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 94): nor would their consumers decide to forgo their UK sourced items.

How do they get it across the boarder into the EU if it doesn´t comply with the local rules? The same way you get non-compliant items into the USA or China: not.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 94): will they suddenly decline their langoustine supper due to a UK withdrawal from the EU ?

Nope, UK Fishermen and exporters will just stick to EU regulations, because there is a price premium to be had.... if they don´t, they won´t sell to the French.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 94): On the matter of air travel, much has been said about the benefits to passengers from EU open skies and that a UK withdrawal would result in travel from the UK to the EU reverting to the old high priced protected market.

Well, U2 would probably downsize quite a bit. Berlin - Lisbon isn´t exactly within their rights as a non-EU carrier. Well, i wonder when Ryanair starts campaigning for the Brexit...

best regards
Thomas

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 94): I agree that there has not been a central European War for 70 years, but you used the word "freedom" that is very different, the Iron Curtain prevented freedom, most noticeably in Germany.

OK, that was my view from a western Point which succeeded adter about 40 years and made a re-unification without a single shot possible. More than one complete army disappeared as a result. Personal freedom was not given on the eastern side of the curtain but there was no war either.

.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 95): Well, U2 would probably downsize quite a bit. Berlin - Lisbon isn´t exactly within their rights as a non-EU carrier. Well, i wonder when Ryanair starts campaigning for the Brexit...

They already set up an Easyjet Switzerland once. They'll just set up shop in some European capital (or buy a small continental airline) and there's your EU carrier. Won't be cheap, but they stand to lose more.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 95): Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 94): will they suddenly decline their langoustine supper due to a UK withdrawal from the EU ? Nope, UK Fishermen and exporters will just stick to EU regulations, because there is a price premium to be had.... if they don´t, they won´t sell to the French.

To the French the rules are only applicable if they don't want the produce, if they want them the rule book will disappear.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 97): They already set up an Easyjet Switzerland once. They'll just set up shop in some European capital (or buy a small continental airline) and there's your EU carrier. Won't be cheap, but they stand to lose more.

Who is owning the other 51%?

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 98): To the French the rules are only applicable if they don't want the produce, if they want them the rule book will disappear.

Yeah, and i am sure they murder everyone they don´t like and steal what they can´t afford   ...
France is a state of law and french people are no less law abiding then yours.
If your fishermen want to keep selling to EU customers, they will do so under EU rules and EU rules only, just like they have to follow US rules to the letter if they want to see to US customers.

best regards
Thomas