But the question is about being in the EU (not quite a United States of Europe)! I think we've been arguing about whether any individual country is willing to accept domination by any other country or group of countries. I don't think the poll in this thread can be answered because we each have a different idea what the EU is. What we need is a definition of what controls the EU is supposed to have - because we've never yet had that.
You're right of course, Shiney. However, I don't think there is a definition that's been collectively agreed by the members. Germany wants a Federal Group, France is historically submissive to Germany while making a show of independence, and the rest of the members all have their own agendas, political/economic ideas and how much control and loss of Nationalism they will surrender. You also have to consider that the the EU Parliament and it's bureaucracy is a completely separate animal from the member countries and it too has it's own agendas and views on how far the EU should integrate and control it's members states whilst passing laws and regulations that affect us all. Me?, I would like to see us remain in the EU, for purely economic reasons, but recover our immigration controls, have more power to reject or accept any legislation passed by the EU, pay less into the EU's Coffers and ensure that the EU Parliament and it's MEP's are much more accountable to the member states. Having said all that, despite all of Cameron's huffing and puffing I don't believe he has the political strength, will or desire to actually accomplish what he says he can.
That's almost exactly my stance. The only thing I'd add though is without the level of independence you describe, I don't think its in our best interests to be in it. In effect, we (all of us, tax payers) subsidise other countries that would not do the same for us even if they could afford to. This in itself is not something I would object to. I can see the logic in it. By giving poorer members a leg up, you create new markets, but what I do think is silly and insulting is when councils tell us that such and such a project isn't coming out of our taxes, because the money for it came from an EU grant. In effect, we give them money, and then have to be grateful when they give us a tiny bit of it back. All of this without any ordinary British citizen having any say in any of it. I'd like us to not send the money off in the first place, then we could use it for various regeneration projects instead of giving a tenner to the EU then asking for a quid of it back so we can build a new sea wall. But my main beef with the EU is purely down to the fact that Britain is now governed from abroad. When it comes to local and general election time, you get all the hype and spiel about what party is going to do what, meanwhile the average person whinges that they're all as bad as each other and nothing will change no matter who wins. The reason why nothing changes no matter who wins is that any new legislation for Britain has to be compatible with the rules set down by the EU, so in very real terms, all that real changes is the name of things, and a very slight re-jigging of where are taxes are clawed from. The classic example of what I'm on about is the case of that convicted terrorist we tried several times to evict. The people wanted rid, the government wanted rid, but EU rules said we have to keep him. That said, my stance is not based on one single case, that is just one example of what I don't like about the EU.
Has anybody actually published a proper analysis of the employment benefits of EU membership? And by 'proper' I mean not only figures for jobs created in the UK, but also how many of those jobs have been taken by non UK EU nationals, and how many UK nationals have gained employment in the EU. Then there's the tax benefits of EU nationals working in the UK to consider. Some sources suggest EU nationals working in the UK are making a net contribution, but other sources state that anybody earning less than £37K/pa is taking out more than they pay in tax, and that doesn't fit with minimum wage, unskilled workers from the EU being net contributors. But can you get honest answers from politicians as to who are taking the jobs and taking the benefits?
@Scrungee, you're absolutely right there. Its one thing that really frustrates me. Nobody seems to really know, or if they do, nobody wants to tell us. In particular I'm thinking about the one liners that politicians throw around. That X thousands jobs would go if we left the EU. Why would they go? Maybe they would but I can't see how. I'm keen to hear/read an explanation as to why all those jobs would go if we left the EU. Maybe they would, but I think the electorate needs those details in order to make an informed decision when it comes to time to vote.
Just look at the level of detail for those voting in the referendum for Scottish independence have been given and consider whether that complete lack of detail would be adequate for an in/out EU referendum.
And is that the crux of the problem do we think? Us human sorts have a built in fear of change and the unknown. I suspect that a significant proportion of the electorate are too young to have known pre-EU Britain, so the prospect of leaving must be terrifying for them. Conversely there will be a significant proportion who are old enough, but have seen so much hot air over the decades that they can't be bothered to care either way any more. Truth is, as much as I hated the idea at first, I'm almost past caring. The EU annoys me sometimes, but generally I don't give it much thought any more. I bet I'm not alone in that respect.
Would be good to have Ted Heaths head on a spike at the Tower of London, the day we joined we burnt all our bridges.
Do you think that if UKIP got a very good result in the EU election this month the EU may just sit up and take a bit more notice? They may think it's a pointer towards how we may vote in the referendum.
Victoria, it appears that the general consensus from the man in the street is that they don't like the EU. Unfortunately, we never seem to get any proper information about the pros and cons of the argument. All we get is rhetoric!
