I get all of that (but thank you for taking the time to type it all out anyway). And that is what I find worrying. It's back to the "he who pays the piper" scenario (in my mind). And why it is all so very difficult to make a firm decision one way or the other. Better the devil you know, or, once bitten twice shy? I wasn't suggesting IS were a threat, merely the fact they are an example of how they are using the media to recruit in this modern day from our modern EU world to create a group who wish to dictate using their beliefs (but, I think you know that). Just as I'm finding it difficult to fall one side or the other, I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts on the complexities I envisage from both sides. But, I will say this much: I do appreciate the way some of our members are able to present their views in ways I can understand (and the time they take to do so) and I'm really hoping it will lead to a clear vote for me when it comes down to it. Not an "Eeny, meany, miney, mo" vote on the day. I just feel this is a very big decision, one I do not wish to take lightly but one that is complex, needs to be viewed from many angles and one I don't want to have any regrets about.
Unfortunately, Ariada, the record shows that actually we have very little power or influence in the EU. There were 576 motions put forward by the EU in the last Parliamentary term that were opposed by our Government and of those 485 were passed giving us a failure rate of 84%. And, indeed, in the last two years our Government has opposed 18 motions of 72 that were proposed in the EU but all 72 were passed, so that's a 25% failure rate in this Parliament alone. Just to top it off our Prime Minister tried to negotiate change in the EU and came back saying he had succeeded in gaining substantial changes when in fact it is now recognised that he came back with absolutely nothing of consequence mirroring Neville Chamberlain waving his piece of paper when he return from meeting Hitler. As for standing on the sidelines, well, that's where, in political reality, we are forced to stand because [a] we are outnumbered by countries with completely different views and agenda's, we are politically disliked because of our reservations about the workings of the EU and our refusal to have the Euro as our national currency, [which has proved emphatically to be the right decision as we would not have recovered from the global recession as well as we have due to being chained to the EU's economic control which has left several of it's members still in recession and in greater debt and therefore in more control by the EU.], [c] I think I can say for all of us that we want no truck with the acknowledged EU agenda of Federalism, [d] I sincerely wish that we did/could have some influence and make a proper contribution politically but our experience of the EU since 1973, when we joined the EU has proved to be disappointing and frustrating due to the fact that several members of the EU want to have the major say and, in fact, have succeeded in doing so. This in a organisation that says it's main objectives are: 1. Promote economic and social progress. Help people earn enough money and get treated fairly. 2. Speak for the European Union on the international scene. By working as a group the EU hopes that Europe will be listened to more by other countries. 3. Introduce European citizenship. Anyone from a member state is a citizen of the EU and gets four special rights. 4. Develop Europe as an area of freedom, security and justice. Help Europeans to live in safety, without the threat of war. 5. Maintain and build on established EU law. Make laws that protect peoples rights in the member countries. So, let's see, after mutating from the ECSC and the EEC in 1951 and then becoming the EU proper in 1993 after the Masstricht Treaty has Objective 1 been achieved? Well, looking at the present situation I think not. Only two countries have benefited economically and socially while the others are still either in recession or struggling to keep their economies out of recession. Objective 2. Well, the only country listening, at the moment, to the EU is the USA who are trying, and have been for decades, to squeeze a beneficial [to them] trade agreement with the EU. More attention is now being given to China, India and other developing countries than the EU due to the weakness of the different [supposedly unified] economies within the one currency. Objective 3. Well, that's succeeded as the 4 rights seem to be [1] you can come to the UK, [2] you can come to the UK, [3] you can come to the UK, [4] you can come to the UK. Don't get me wrong the last thing I am is anti-immigrant but the numbers we have been getting over the last few years has proved to be controversial to say the least. Objective 4. Hmmmmm, well, maybe not. I would prophesise that at the first sign of a major war a lot of countries would go their own way rather than accept the political decision issued by the EU. Objective 5. Well, that's kinda of debatable. I think there's been a lot of laws that seem to restrict rights rather than protect them.........but that is a matter of opinion.
Sorry @ARMANDII I don't seem to be able to agree with your maths. We opposed 18 motions and lost all of them. That's 100% failure rate. The other 54 motions didn't need us to say anything one way or another so don't come into the statistics. Statistics!
I understand that a lot of respected economists (is that an oxymoron? ) have now published a paper saying that we would be much better off OUT.
Some facts: neither for or against, just for information https://speakout.38degrees.org.uk/c...=email&utm_source=38degrees&utm_campaign=par1
Hi Ariade, Thanks for posting that I won't go into too much detail as a reply cuz I think people should read it for themselves. The one thing that i think this does state very clearly is the money side of things. You hear all these figures bandied about by various so called sources who should know better ( most notably Michael Gove, how the hell that weasel of a man ever got a job in the Cabinet God only knows ) when in fact it comes down to a figure of about £2.15 per person per week that we contribute as a nation. I wonder how many people who are moaning about the contribution we make go out and waste more than that every day without giving it a second thought. As I've said before on this thread, I personally would carry on contributing that amount just to see my counties farmers supported.
Thing is you hear figures quoted by both sides, both untrue and manipulated to show their point of view. As to £2.15 pp, that might be true if everyone in the country was paying into the system, I think if you were to break it down, I'm only guessing, but its probably less than half the population actually contribute.
Hi Pete, With regards to your first paragraph, this report is totally independent as @Ariadae said, so it benefits neither side. Perhaps I didn't explain what I meant correctly. There's obviously no way that everyone in the country pays in as this is meant as just meant as an average of - Total paid in divided by total population - .
Well it's more meaningful than half the c*** spouted by most of those who want out. At least it's independent.
The same can be said of those that want in. There is so much disinformation on both sides, it's nigh on impossible to make an informed choice.
