I keep watching all these discussion programmes and reading editorials and stuff but I'm still none the wiser. I'd just like someone to describe what they think is the pros and cons of being in or out of the Common Market. I truly haven't a clue! Mind you, I'm much the same way when it comes to your ordinary voting, general or local. How do you know who is best? Discussion please for one seriously beffuddled old lady!
I'm want out, as i don't trust what they say and do, is it for the good of the country or for the men/women in the suits
Probably in, it's better to be allied with a strong group of neighbouring countries and who else would we ally with? The US? Nobody trusts them either! Also, leaving would be very disruptive and represent an unbelievable waste of money beyond what we have already seen. But I would like to see a dispassionate listing of pros and cons stripped of their emotive political weighting and without partisan knee-jerk reactions. Preferably written in words of one syllable.
I haven't voted in your poll because I am as yet undecided what I'd vote, if only we were even given the choice. Here's my views though. I don't think the EU and the Common Market are the same thing (maybe they are, someone might enlighten me on that point), but as for trade, we managed perfectly fine to trade internationally before the EU was created. I like the idea of freedom of movement within the EU, but again we could do that before the EU. You just had to get a passport (which you still need anyway), and you had to list the countries whose territories you intended to pass through. I remember going to Spain as a kid, and my dad having to say in advance that we would be passing through France and Andorra. So much paperwork, having to write down the names of as many as three countries. If you wanted to live or work in another country, you just had to apply and be judged on the merits of your application. I see no problem with that. So, pros and cons. Pros. Being in the EU means if we get sick or injured abroad, within the EU, we can be treated for free by the host country's equivalent of the NHS. This is a big plus, because although it is prudent to have health insurance too, as we all know, insurance companies will do anything to get out of paying or to make it difficult to make a claim. In practice though, I guess it depends on your likelihood of needing their help. A few times either wife or I have been poorly abroad, enough to need medical assistance, but fortunately not enough to need emergency care. In parts of Europe, their pharmacists are much more highly qualified than ours and are allowed to make diagnoses of minor ailments and issue drugs that over here would be prescription only. This has proved invaluable on occasion for both missus and I, so being part of the EU makes no difference there, but it would have if we'd needed to go to hospital. It is less easy to accidentally fall foul of the law now we're in the EU, as many laws are now roughly common across the union. An important one to me is about confidentiality of data. In the UK we have the Data Protection Act which means that companies that hold data about us have a legal obligation to keep it safe. A similar law now applies across the whole of the EU. However, there is nothing at all to stop a UK or EU company outsourcing its operations to outside of the EU, to place like India, where data theft is big business and there's nothing we can do about it, so the EU doesn't help in that respect. Theoretically, being part of the EU makes us part of a military superpower, as in theory if one of us gets into bother, we all have to join in. In practice that doesn't happen, because in reality they all vote whether to join in or not, and then if they decide to join in, most will either cry off, or offer maybe 3 soldiers. Cons The UK is no longer its own country. Politicians will say it is, but the EU calls the shots. Ironically we seem to be the only EU member state that abides by all the silly rules. We can't even throw out convicted terrorists who openly and public try to get people wound up enough to attack us on our own soil. The EU holds a list of things that are classed as food. If something is not on that list, even if it is edible, nutritious, delicious and abundant, it can't be sold in the EU as a foodstuff. Now lets say I made up a giant pan of nettle and wild garlic soup and took it to the mobile food bank thingy that turns up next door at the weekends. Even if I had the necessary food hygiene certificates and whatever, I couldn't offer it up because as far as I know, nettles are not on the EU's list of things that are food. That's probably a rubbish example, but hopefully you understand my point, as I can't think of a better way to explain it. The EU has a direct influence on UK farming rules and subsidies. The EU covers a very wide area, with tremendous diversity of conditions. I can't see how it would be possible to keep all parties happy. Imagine a Spanish orange grower and a British wheat grower trying to agree between themselves where the subsidies should go. The EU tries to manage finances across the the whole union. Before the EU, Britain was rich compared to Spain (for example), but in real terms for ordinary people there was not too much difference. Ok, the people in Spain were paid peanuts compared to people in Britain, but there cost of living was peanuts compared to in Britain, so it kind of roughly balanced out. Suddenly forming a union and attempting to manage the money across the board obviously had an impact, and not always a positive one. Add to that the fact that comparatively rich Brits and Germans could now move to comparatively poor countries like Spain and Greece, taking their money with them, and pushing prices up for the locals so that local people couldn't even dream of affording to live in their own country any more, and at the same time allowing (and causing) people who are used to working for peanuts to go to the former rich countries was also going to have an impact on things. Luckily those that were daft enough to sign our country over, at least had the sense to keep our currency. We've seen that its a good job they did. It meant we were very, very, very slightly less affected when it all went pear shaped. But for those that did sign up to the single currency, we've seen how one or two countries that can't look after themselves can drag the whole union into crisis. Then there's history and culture. Europe has a lot of both. I can't see how its possible to lump everyone together when there's so many cultural differences, and so much history (much of it not good). Lastly, again on history, there's an inescapable fact. No empire lasts. The EU is effectively an empire. Ok, I'm not a history buff, but I know a bit, and I can't think of a single empire from history that has not at some point torn itself apart. The one possible exception is China, where everyone is so tightly controlled that it can't really tear itself apart, but even there they have more than their fair share of internal troubles. My last thought on this for now is this. There is nothing wrong with Britain and other European countries getting along and trading etc. I get on with my neighbours, and if we had reason to trade with each other we would, but if they started telling me how to behave in my own house, what to grow in my own garden, or that one of them is moving in and I have to let them, I'd tell them to get stuffed.
I personally would like out of the EU.. It just seems to have led to a downhill slide to me, with Britain losing, but not sure if we would survive now without it..
If we pulled out today, I think we'd have major problems because we are too tightly integrated into the EU now. What would need to happen, and it ought to happen anyway whether we stay or not, is over the next few years we should start putting the framework in place for us to be fully independent again. In terms of military capability, which lets face it, we still need, we need to wait til we have those new aircraft carriers fully operational, and planes to put on them. We need to also stop laying off service men and women. In terms of food production, we need to stop selling land off to multinational companies, and start looking at the land we have and how best to utilise it. In terms of business, we need to start focusing on UK companies, providing better support both financially and in terms of mentoring and skills sharing (particularly important for startups). I make it sound like I'm talking about isolating Britain, but really I'm not. We need international trade, and alliances etc, but we also need to have the capability of being independent to cover ourselves for situations where our allies and trading partners might not want to go the same way as us. In effect, we need to be in a position to say to Europe, "Hey Europe, we're happy for us to be mates, but we don't actually depend on you".
Straight in or out vote ? I guess Im in - but given the option I would like us to take a step back from the EU as it is now & rework our relationship to be more of a Free trade kinda thing, much like it was originally intended with the common market - the relationship that Norway have is a good example of where I think we should be.
Ellen Norway do very well with their billions in oil revenue. If we leave the EU now , wave good bye to 500,000 jobs minimum. As most people I would prefer it to be mainly a trading area , we do not want a United States of Europe.
I'm not sold on the EU, I don't think it's turned out the way they originally thought it would be like
No, but then they can export more than they need to import. I agree with that. We could not afford to leave. My ideal too, although I do like the other benefits too. The states that make up the USA appear to have more freedom to set their own laws than we do! And that in one is my whole issue with the EU. It appears to want to control every aspect of our lives. So I'm very much an "in" person, but I do believe that we need to re-negotiate what the EU means for ALL Europeans. And does it need to be any bigger? We already have the UN surely?
