I see that Cameron is taking a 'harder' line on our membership of the EU. For some time now, I've been listening to both sides of the argument, flitting from one to the other - but have now settled on a view. We should leave. Look at those European countries who have never joined the EU - Norway being the prime example - they have thrived. They trade with the EU and have full control over their own destiny. We (the UK) put in more than we get out - I'm not sure now why we joined in the first place . I know which way I'll be voting in 2017.
It was all about making trade easer, but it's now got to big and powerfull IMHO I voted not to join and will be voting to get out
This is only Woos personal opinion Good afternoon Mr Cameron is just putting on a front he has no intention of leaving EU,we joined at the time because it was all about ,if you like safety in numbers,we had the big powers USA,Russia,China ect and European States so that we had a certain amount of protection,but for that safety we have paid a high price indeed
NATO will provide the security we need. By signing up to the EEA we will be able to freely trade with the EU as if we were a full member - but without the interference of Brussels. This is why Norway has prospered. Out I say Soap box - off
I think Norway is rather a special case. It makes billions of dollars from its oil revenue . This going into a very small population makes it a very very rich country.
Well, to me we should have never joined and Ted should have been strung up for selling us down the river, he was probably the worst prime minister this country has had in modern times. But now we are in it, it will not be straight forward for us to leave, and if we should I think there could well be some dirty dealing going on in the EU to make us pay for our exit. I'm pretty sure cameron wants to stay in, but you cant negotiate without at least pretending you might go either way. Negotiate is something the EU does not actually do very well, Dictate is more their way of doing things, and as its basically run by only two of its members with all the others expected to fall in line, you can see why the Brits have a problem with it. We should be running it, not those two.
I think we've had a few to match him in both parties, Pete I agree with you Pete. We don't even know what changes he wants. The fact that the British Public might want different changes or to go even further with the changes seems to be being ignored. So unless Mr Cameron actually specifies exactly what changes he thinks should how can we have a referendum??? I've never understood how 27 countries with completely differently histories, cultures, religious and national biased views, economies, political aims, and national aims can abandon their currencies and expect to be able to have one, the Euro, which gives equal purchasing and economic power to all. Events have shown, in fact, that the Euro hasn't made the countries equal but, has in fact, ended with the majority having their economic/political independence taken away and given to the major powers behind the EU. Each of those countries have, despite using the Euro, economies that rely on different sources of revenue as is shown by Greece, the Eastern European countries, and those countries also in the mediterranean area. We're the 28th member but, as we all know, have kept our own currencies and events have shown what a wise decision that was. If we had joined in with the Euro we would still be in a major recession now. Your right, Pete. The EU will put up every trading and economic penalty and fine they can find to deter us and, of course, they will eke the process out to at least 2 years as they find every so called legal technicality to stall the procedure..
Although I don't disagree with what everyone has said, I'm not sure Norway is a good example because of a matter of scale (I don't think the EU a bothered much because of such a small population). The whole country has only 60% of the population of London. This makes things a lot less complicated for them. It's a good example simply because of being part of EEA, but EEA only consists of small countries. I can understand some businesses being very reluctant to come out of the EU because of all the documentation that would need to be done for exporting to the EU countries. If we are able to leave the EU and join the EEA (European Economic Area) or become part of EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement) there should not be too much of an impact on exporting countries. EEA has only the four main “freedoms” of the EU - free circulation of goods, services, persons and capital between EEA states and this allows equal trading with the EU. EEA are not really envisaging allowing more countries to join them but they may make an exception for us. Is Cameron looking at this option? Who knows! EEA consists of Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein, whereas EFTA also had Switzerland as a member. Switzerland has since dropped out and entered a bilateral agreement with the EU, essentially giving it the same rights as EEA. It might be possible for us to enter a bilateral agreement but Germany and France will try and put up as many barriers as possible to it. EEA isn't a part of the Schengen Agreement (freedom of movement without need for visas and controls) but Norway and Iceland have signed to it anyway. I don't think that many of the other EU citizens are particularly wanting to go to either of those two countries and almost none of the refugees would want to go to such cold countries. There's not a great deal of difference between EEA and EFTA. EFTA started in 1960 (I think) and EEA in the 1990's.
I honestly do not know where I stand on our membership of the EEU or how I would vote in any future referendum. In the late 60's and early 70's thing were much clearer to me and I was not only opposed to us joining the EEC (anything that De Gaulle was in favour of could not be right) but actively campaigned against it, again in 1975 when we had a referendum on membership I was an active campaigner for us to get out. In the 60's we were not only actively trading with the Commonwealth countries we were also a founder member of EFTA and were trading with the then other 6 member countries, most of these ties were abandoned when we joined "the club". I am not an economist and my arguments for my feelings now may be full of holes, but, if we leave the EEU our options are limited. Yes we could join the EEA but Norway pays just as much into the EEU to trade with them as we do and Norway does not have any way of influencing EEU policy or a vote on that policy. Not only that but Norway is the biggest provider of aluminium and other alloys to the EEU as well as being a major provider of petroleum products. Yes we could apply to re-join EFTA but there are only 4 members now so a very limited market. It is worth noting that the UK already has a trade deficit with some EEU countries including Germany and Holland, if we were not a member the deficit could become even larger. I hate being in a "club" that despite it's outward appearance is run by, and in my opinion, for the benefit of only two of it's members however I am not 100% sure that the alternative would be in the best interests of this country and it's people, we should not have joined in the first place but is it now too late to not be in?
I bet if we all vote to leave the EU there will be a long wait for it to happen, or a clause which will mean a commission will have to investigate so I bet 10 years, now where's paddy powers number I need to get good odds on this bet as the government will take more again.
I think it's down to 3 now. Switzerland pulled out (two years ago, I think) and came to their own bilateral agreement. If we pulled out of the EU and joined EEA/EFTA we would still contribute to the EU but only about 20% of what we do at the moment. There would not be trade tariffs on manufactured goods but there may be on agriculture because the Common Agricultural Policy is not part of the agreement. That could work either way - tariffs to sell farm produce to the EU and tariffs for them to import to us. We don't have enough information on costs etc. to make a properly informed decision, and both sides of the argument will only put forward their best points. We need an impartial organisation to collate all the figures and present them to us. Was that a pig I just saw fly by? As my business report once stated, "All staff happy, all customers happy, all targets met, and the pigs are being readied for their flying lessons.".
There you go then! I try to keep up with the political scene but other, more important, things now take up my time, I am talking about family mainly and gardening to a degree (thought I better mention that as this is still a gardening forum!) I couldn't agree more, only a fool would make the leap of faith to leave something that does work for us to a degree for the absolute unknown that may be offered us by politicians. The EEU is definitely not without faults but perhaps we should try to reform from the inside instead of abandoning it, possibly for ever. I am torn between the two, on one side the scepticism of my youth versus the older me who just enjoys a bit of peace, quiet and security.
To me that is the crux of the matter, I dont think we will ever have a say in Europe, or at least what we say will never be listened to, we have already worked out that it is run by two countries, and none of the others appear to have much of a voice. The poorer countries actually gain by being members, and can, to some extent, just let the big two run it. We on the other hand dont really seem to gain much, (again independent info really required), So the old idea of being able to reform the muddle from the inside seems unlikely to me. And the chages which cameron announced he is seeking, today, seem pretty minor to me, and they, (those that must be obeyed), appear to have thrown one of the ideas out already.
