The UK Refendum on leaving the EU

[Master Disaster]

In case you've got no idea what I'm talking about, on June 23rd the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are going to vote on if we should leave or stay in the EU.

 

I know my choice on the matter but I'm interested to hear what people from outside the UK think on the matter (you can still vote if your from the UK).

 

Bear in mind that us leaving would make us better off initially but once you take into account the various fees we would have to pay if we left (trade, tourism etc) most of the financial institutions say we would end up worse off in the long run.

 

The UK leaving might end up making the EU economy so weak that the whole thing might collapse.

 

The UK leaving would automatically disqualify us from serving in NATO (we would have to reapply to join it) which would make the peace keeping force seriously weaker.

 

On the flip side it would allow us to take full control over our police, borders, and allow us to set our own laws and not have to abide by anything that comes out of Brussels. Plus it flat out saves us our yearly EU contribution which is money straight back into our fund.

 

Its a very complex situation.

 

What do you guys think?

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Bear in mind that us leaving would make us better off initially but once you take into account the various fees we would have to pay if we left (trade, tourism etc) most of the financial institutions say we would end up worse off in the long run.

Not necessarily. There is always the possibility of entering into treaties with EU that would allow free movement of wares and workers. 

Norway has similar treaties and even Switzerland has some free movement treaties with the EU. 

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

The UK leaving might end up making the EU economy so weak that the whole thing might collapse.

I highly doubt it. While Britain's exit would leave a noticable dent in the EU, the economic system is adaptable. 

The EU would probably losen its economic policies sooner than letting the union collaps.

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

On the flip side it would allow us to take full control over our police, borders, and allow us to set our own laws and not have to abide by anything that comes out of Brussels. Plus it flat out saves us our yearly EU contribution which is money straight back into our fund.

Care to explain the police part. The EU can't make criminal law that applies in any member state (expect for cases of market abuse), nor can the EU dictate how the police force in a memberstate does its work. 

 

Personally, I don't really care all that much, It is not up for my to decide what Britain should do. That's for the British voters to decide. 

As far as I can tell Britain would still (economically speaking) be in an uncertain position if/when they leave the EU.

But leaving the EU might make it easier for Britain to open up to new markets, and make itself more intersting to invest in for foreign investors. 

[Serin]

The contributions of the UK with the EU to science have been huge. Don't want to see that diminished. 

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Not necessarily. There is always the possibility of entering into treaties with EU that would allow free movement of wares and workers. 

Norway has similar treaties and even Switzerland has some free movement treaties with the EU. 

 

I highly doubt it. While Britains exit would leave a noticable dent in the EU, the economic system is adaptable. 

The EU would probably losen its economic policies sooner than letting the union collaps.

 

Care to explain the police part. The EU can't make criminal law that applies in any member state (expect for cases of market abuse), nor can the EU dictate how the police force in a memberstate does its work. 

 

Personally, I don't really care all that much, It is not up for my to decide what Britain should do. That's for the British voters to decide. 

As far as I can tell Britain would still (economically speaking) be in an uncertain position if/when they leave the EU.

But leaving the EU might make it easier for Britain to open up to new markets, and make itself more intersting to invest in for foreign investors. 

Thats interesting about the police, I was under the impression that while they couldn't impose laws onto us they could prevent us from passing laws which go against EU legislation, so for example if the use of cannabis was banned under EU legislation (and I know it isn't) that would mean we couldn't legalise its use while we were in the UK. Is that not true?

 

BTW I'm not asking anyone to decide, just to respond with their opinion on the matter

[Volbet]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Thats interesting about the police, I was under the impression that while they couldn't impose laws onto us they could prevent us from passing laws which go against EU legislation, so for example if the use of cannabis was banned under EU legislation (and I know it isn't) that would mean we couldn't legalise its use while we were in the UK. Is that not true?

 

BTW I'm not asking anyone to decide, just to respond with their opinion on the matter

Well, you can't make laws that goes against EU law. That's what being a union is about. 

That certainly has it's advantages, but there are also a lot fo disadvantages. 

So you are absolutly correct. 

 

In the case of Cannabis (just to further the example) the EU could techically outlaw it by banning products containing THC. 

The EU doesn't directly have the power to criminalize Cannabis, but the EU can ban products containing THC within the borders of the EU.

For the end user this is pretty much the same, but legally speaking there is a difference. 

However, you can't be sentenced to prison time on the basis of EU legislation (exept when it's market abuse).

 

And my opinion on the Brexit are pretty torn. 

On one hand the EU has made a lot of things easier, both for the companies and the consumers. 

And it has opened up the marketplace, making the competition on the market a lot more open.

 

On the other hand that same competition is hurting some people. There is a reason why farms in most of Western Europe are suffering.

It's becuase the Eastern European expanison of the EU brought a lot of cheap products from Eastern European producers to Western consumers.

And the farming subsidies do undoubtedly go a longer way in Poland than it does in France. 

[Centurius]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Thats interesting about the police, I was under the impression that while they couldn't impose laws onto us they could prevent us from passing laws which go against EU legislation, so for example if the use of cannabis was banned under EU legislation (and I know it isn't) that would mean we couldn't legalise its use while we were in the UK. Is that not true?

 

BTW I'm not asking anyone to decide, just to respond with their opinion on the matter

Very technically speaking yes, but the EU isn't allowed to pass legislation in that field. It would first require a treaty change which itself requires the approval of all 28 member states(essentially meaning each member state passes it in their own legislature).

[Mug]

On 22/04/2016 at 3:13 PM, Master Disaster said:

Bear in mind that us leaving would make us better off initially but once you take into account the various fees we would have to pay if we left (trade, tourism etc) most of the financial institutions say we would end up worse off in the long run.

That's not true, leaving is bad in both the short term and the long term.

People argue that we could spend x number of pounds more on the NHS, but really, we'd have to spend it on infrastructure, science, agriculture amonsgt others because there'd be a huge gap in spending that the EU helps us with currently. Anyone who thinks that we can spend that much money extra on social policies are delusional.

What will actually happen then? Well, assuming that government spending stays on track, we'll see food prices going up by about 20%. In part, this is due to the import taxes but it will also be because the EU isn't subsidising our farms any more.

The banking system will collapse or be on the verge of collapsing because we've got no reserves, people will sell their pound stocks due to uncertainty and we will therefore see higher inflation than we have in the past few decades. It could be as bad as Black Wednesday. Great! Both my savings and my job will be gone.

In the long term, politicians will have to be more careful, no more vicious spending cuts and no more irresponsible borrowing because that'd seriously hurt the country. Investment would be lower because Britain is currently almost the gateway to the common market but wouldn't have that any more. Of course, it could be better in the long run but I doubt it.

 

On 22/04/2016 at 3:13 PM, Master Disaster said:

The UK leaving would automatically disqualify us from serving in NATO (we would have to reapply to join it) which would make the peace keeping force seriously weaker.

That's irrelevant, doesn't actually matter, haven't heard much about that myself. That's one of those arguments that are really inconsequential but people will think are important, like the deficit in the 2015 election.

 

I'm voting to stay in the EU but some of the arguments on both sides are completely useless. The arguments that I can find truth in and are therefore compelling to me are:

 

Stay:

• Leaving would mean people are worse off due to import duties from the EU (look at Switzerland if you need an example of a place outside the EU but is expensive)
• Leaving would mean that we're outside the Eurpean Court of Human Rights, so we would be at the whim of our judiciary rather than the EU's
• Leaving would mean that we could not control the EU from inside and push thrugh the reforms that we need
• We're more secure in a conglomerate of countries
• We keep the money that we get from the EU
• Our banking system won't collapse
• We could be part of a federal Europe (I like the idea of a federal Europe)

Leave:

• We could control migration and ensure a fairer system was put in place
• We wouldn't have to have laws made by an un-elected chamber
• We could get rid of some EU beaurocracy
• We could become a more sovereign country
• We could have a new national identity

 

But then again, I'm fairly atypical of the average British person, I don't really give a damn about migration and I have some trust that whatever happens, it won't be too bad.

 

I'd personally like us to stay on our current track but with a few changes:

• No border controls with Europe but you have to have a work permit to come here and the work permits are equally as easy to get if you come from in or out of the EU
• Reformation of democracy within the EU, no unelected chambers making laws (which is the most compelling leave argument imo)
• Deportation of Nigel Farage to Romania

 

Anyway... I've just about decided how I'm going to vote in the PCC/Council elections and that's sooner than this is.

[Centurius]

5 minutes ago, Mug said:

That's not true, leaving is bad in both the short term and the long term.

People argue that we could spend x number of pounds more on the NHS, but really, we'd have to spend it on infrastructure, science, agriculture amonsgt others because there'd be a huge gap in spending that the EU helps us with currently. Anyone who thinks that we can spend that much money extra on social policies are delusional.

What will actually happen then? Well, assuming that government spending stays on track, we'll see food prices going up by about 20%. In part, this is due to the import taxes but it will also be because the EU isn't subsidising our farms any more.

The banking system will collapse or be on the verge of collapsing because we've got no reserves, people will sell their pound stocks due to uncertainty and we will therefore see higher inflation than we have in the past few decades. It could be as bad as Black Wednesday. Great! Both my savings and my job will be gone.

In the long term, politicians will have to be more careful, no more vicious spending cuts and no more irresponsible borrowing because that'd seriously hurt the country. Investment would be lower because Britain is currently almost the gateway to the common market but wouldn't have that any more. Of course, it could be better in the long run but I doubt it.

 

That's irrelevant, doesn't actually matter, haven't heard much about that myself. That's one of those arguments that are really inconsequential but people will think are important, like the deficit in the 2015 election.

 

I'm voting to stay in the EU but some of the arguments on both sides are completely useless. The arguments that I can find truth in and are therefore compelling to me are:

 

Stay:

• Leaving would mean people are worse off due to import duties from the EU (look at Switzerland if you need an example of a place outside the EU but is expensive)
• Leaving would mean that we're outside the Eurpean Court of Human Rights, so we would be at the whim of our judiciary rather than the EU's
• Leaving would mean that we could not control the EU from inside and push thrugh the reforms that we need
• We're more secure in a conglomerate of countries
• We keep the money that we get from the EU
• Our banking system won't collapse
• We could be part of a federal Europe (I like the idea of a federal Europe)

Leave:

• We could control migration and ensure a fairer system was put in place
• We wouldn't have to have laws made by an un-elected chamber
• We could get rid of some EU beaurocracy
• We could become a more sovereign country
• We could have a new national identity

 

But then again, I'm fairly atypical of the average British person, I don't really give a damn about migration and I have some trust that whatever happens, it won't be too bad.

 

I'd personally like us to stay on our current track but with a few changes:

• No border controls with Europe but you have to have a work permit to come here and the work permits are equally as easy to get if you come from in or out of the EU
• Reformation of democracy within the EU, no unelected chambers making laws (which is the most compelling leave argument imo)
• Deportation of Nigel Farage to Romania

 

Anyway... I've just about decided how I'm going to vote in the PCC/Council elections and that's sooner than this is.

Just one correction on one of your stay arguments. The European Court of Human Rights was founded following the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights which is part of the Council of Europe and not the European Union. Leaving the EU would still hold the UK to the ECHR unless it also left the Council of Europe at the same time.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, Mug said:

That's not true, leaving is bad in both the short term and the long term.

People argue that we could spend x number of pounds more on the NHS, but really, we'd have to spend it on infrastructure, science, agriculture amonsgt others because there'd be a huge gap in spending that the EU helps us with currently. Anyone who thinks that we can spend that much money extra on social policies are delusional.

What will actually happen then? Well, assuming that government spending stays on track, we'll see food prices going up by about 20%. In part, this is due to the import taxes but it will also be because the EU isn't subsidising our farms any more.

The banking system will collapse or be on the verge of collapsing because we've got no reserves, people will sell their pound stocks due to uncertainty and we will therefore see higher inflation than we have in the past few decades. It could be as bad as Black Wednesday. Great! Both my savings and my job will be gone.

In the long term, politicians will have to be more careful, no more vicious spending cuts and no more irresponsible borrowing because that'd seriously hurt the country. Investment would be lower because Britain is currently almost the gateway to the common market but wouldn't have that any more. Of course, it could be better in the long run but I doubt it.

 

That's irrelevant, doesn't actually matter, haven't heard much about that myself. That's one of those arguments that are really inconsequential but people will think are important, like the deficit in the 2015 election.

 

I'm voting to stay in the EU but some of the arguments on both sides are completely useless. The arguments that I can find truth in and are therefore compelling to me are:

 

Stay:

• Leaving would mean people are worse off due to import duties from the EU (look at Switzerland if you need an example of a place outside the EU but is expensive)
• Leaving would mean that we're outside the Eurpean Court of Human Rights, so we would be at the whim of our judiciary rather than the EU's
• Leaving would mean that we could not control the EU from inside and push thrugh the reforms that we need
• We're more secure in a conglomerate of countries
• We keep the money that we get from the EU
• Our banking system won't collapse
• We could be part of a federal Europe (I like the idea of a federal Europe)

Leave:

• We could control migration and ensure a fairer system was put in place
• We wouldn't have to have laws made by an un-elected chamber
• We could get rid of some EU beaurocracy
• We could become a more sovereign country
• We could have a new national identity

 

But then again, I'm fairly atypical of the average British person, I don't really give a damn about migration and I have some trust that whatever happens, it won't be too bad.

 

I'd personally like us to stay on our current track but with a few changes:

• No border controls with Europe but you have to have a work permit to come here and the work permits are equally as easy to get if you come from in or out of the EU
• Reformation of democracy within the EU, no unelected chambers making laws (which is the most compelling leave argument imo)
• Deportation of Nigel Farage to Romania

So you don't think Putin isn't sat in his bond villain armchair stroking his black pussy cat and preparing for the day that the the strongest force present in NATO might leave it?

 

IMO Putin is a dangerous threat to Europe and without NATO there's very little to stop him from mobilising the armour and infantry divisions and walking into eastern Europe almost entirely unopposed.

 

I'm not sure he would ever do it but then again he seems to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic so who knows what he will try if the EU falls apart.

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, Mug said:

Leaving would mean that we're outside the Eurpean Court of Human Rights, so we would be at the whim of our judiciary rather than the EU's

Not entirly correct. The European Court of Human Rights have nothing to do with the EU. The EU uses the European Court of Justice. 

The ECH is under the European Council. Not the EU. 

 

The European Treaty on Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Charter of Human Rights.

The Treaty is a internationl agreement made between 47 European nations, and serve as nothing more than that,

The Charter is part of the Treaty of Lisbon and only serves as part of EU's foundation.  

 

Strangely enough, it's a common concern that the inconsistencies between the two courts will make states unsure what is and what isn't a human right. 

[Centurius]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

So you don't think Putin isn't sat in his bond villain armchair stroking his black pussy cat and preparing for the day that the the strongest force present in NATO might leave it?

 

IMO Putin is a dangerous threat to Europe and without NATO there's very little to stop him from mobilising the armour and infantry divisions and walking into eastern Europe almost entirely unopposed.

 

I'm not sure he would ever do it but then again he seems to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic so who knows what he will try if the EU falls apart.

The US is leaving NATO?

[Mug]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

So you don't think Putin isn't sat in his bond villain armchair stroking his black pussy cat and preparing for the day that the the strongest force present in NATO might leave it?

 

IMO Putin is a dangerous threat to Europe and without NATO there's very little to stop him from mobilising the armour and infantry divisions and walking into eastern Europe almost entirely unopposed.

 

I'm not sure he would ever do it but then again he seems to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic so who knows what he will try if the EU falls apart.

There are other security mechanisms bar nato. Besides, we live in a civilised world, if the danger of the UK leaving NATO was that great, surely they wouldn't make us re-apply. This is why that argument makes no sense to me.

[Schony125]

europe is s**t

[Mug]

4 minutes ago, Centurius said:

Just one correction on one of your stay arguments. The European Court of Human Rights was founded following the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights which is part of the Council of Europe and not the European Union. Leaving the EU would still hold the UK to the ECHR unless it also left the Council of Europe at the same time.

 

2 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Not entirly correct. The European Court of Human Rights have nothing to do with the EU. The EU uses the European Court of Justice. 

The ECH is under the European Council of Europe. Not the EU. 

 

The European Treaty on Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Charter of Human Rights.

The Treaty is a internationl agreement made between 47 European nations, and serve as nothing more than that,

The Charter is part of the Treaty of Lisbon and only serves as part of EU's foundation.  

Well... You learn something new every day

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Mug said:

There are other security mechanisms bar nato. Besides, we live in a civilised world, if the danger of the UK leaving NATO was that great, surely they wouldn't make us re-apply. This is why that argument makes no sense to me.

Fair enough argument I suppose.

 

1 minute ago, Centurius said:

The US is leaving NATO?

Oversight on my part, I meant to say "one of the"

 

That said though, what exactly could the USA do to stop him? Apply sanctions? 

[ThinkWithPortals]

Stay. 100% stay. I don't think the economy could take it if the UK left.

[Mug]

2 minutes ago, Schony125 said:

europe is s**t

Thanks for making such a mammoth contribution there

[Schony125]

Just now, Mug said:

Thanks for making such a mammoth contribution there

just wanted to say what I think without writing a poem

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Schony125 said:

just wanted to say what I think without writing a poem

So how about you tell us why you think that?

[typographie]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I know my choice on the matter but I'm interested to hear what people from outside the UK think on the matter (you can still vote if your from the UK).

As an American, I think our main interest here is in our friends being as strong and unified and democratic as possible. Especially today, with Russia pushing quite hard against the west. And for the first time in decades, a European border changing through force of arms.

 

I do not claim to know much or have a valuable opinion about your internal politics, and I know these things can be very different in different societies. But this sounds a lot like the sentiments of the nationalist/nativist/right-wing movements here in the U.S., to which I am categorically opposed. It always takes some compromise to be part of a wider democratic society, but there's benefits. If I were a British citizen, I think I'd be on the side of remaining in the EU.

 

Are your members in the European Parliament appointed by your government, or do you vote directly for them? I think I'd personally be more comfortable voting for them directly, given the stakes. Maybe that's a change I'd be in favor of.

[Schony125]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

So how about you tell us why you think that?

now that I think its actually difficult to explain because the uk is in a very fortunate position in eu; it has they'r own currency with their own central bank so they are free of stupid debt game from bce. they are on a separate island and not on a boarder like italy-spain-and the east so they dont have such a HUGE problem with immigrants.

this are just a couple of things.

 

Im not saying the uk must leave from the eu but if I could vote I would vote for that as we did in Switzerland a couple of years ago because I dont like the eu as a thing and the things that comes with it, the one's mentioned are some reasons why I dont like it.

 

its a complicated matter to discuss in my own language imagine in eng.

plus I dont like to follow the evolution on what is happening right now in the whole word because its just stupid and sad.

 

 

[Rammix]

I'll be voting to stay in, I think @Mug has said it more eloquently than I could have. Unfortunately there has been a lot of misinformation on both sides, confusing the public and making it more or a gut decision than an informed decision.    

[Volbet]

35 minutes ago, typographie said:

Are your members in the European Parliament appointed by your government, or do you vote directly for them? I think I'd personally be more comfortable voting for them directly, given the stakes. Maybe that's a change I'd be in favor of.

Yes, the members of the Parliament are voted in directly by the voters in the member states.

It's not that easy, however.

 

There is the Commission that has the executive power in the EU system. But the members of the Commission are not voted in by the voters. They are picked by the governments in the individual member states. This is one of the main problems people have with the EU system.

Arguably the most powerful part of the system doesn't contain any member the voters have voted for. 

 

Then there is the Council, which along with the Parliament, holds the legislative power. The Council consists of different representatives from the member states governments.

Usually those representatives are the choosen on basis of what the meeting is about. 

For example, if the council meeting is about agriculture the representative would most likely be the Minister of Agriculture. 

 

Lastly, the Parliament is the second part of the legislative branch. As said, the members of the Parliament are chosen by the voters at local elections. 

The problem some countries (especially countries in Western Europe) has is that the number of members a country can elect depends on the size of the population.

Overall this seems like a fair system, however, the countries in Western Europe are not as populous as some of the countries in Eastern Europe, but they still account for most of the revenue generated in the EU. 

For example, Poland has a population of about 38 mio. people, yet their GDP is only 62% larger than the Danish GDP eventhough the Danish population is about 7 times smaller than the Polish population,

This means that Denmark produces a lot more per capita to the EU system, but they aren't as well represented.  

 

Edit: It sounds like I have some kind of personal grudge against Poland when reading this thread. 

I will assure everyone that I don't. They are just the first example that pops into my head. 

[Master Disaster]

17 minutes ago, Rammix said:

I'll be voting to stay in, I think @Mug has said it more eloquently than I could have. Unfortunately there has been a lot of misinformation on both sides, confusing the public and making it more or a gut decision than an informed decision.    

Agreed on the misinformation point, both the stay & brexit parties have been twisting facts in order to suit their own agendas.

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Yes, the members of the Parliament are voted in directly by the voters in the member states.

It's not that easy, however.

 

There is the Commission that has the executive power in the EU system. But the members of the Commission are not voted in by the voters. They are picked by the governments in the individual member states. This is one of the main problems people have with the EU system.

Arguably the most powerful part of the system doesn't contain any member the voters have voted for. 

 

Then there is the Council, which along with the Parliament, holds the legislative power. The Council consists of different representatives from the member states governments.

Usually those representatives are the choosen on basis of what the meeting is about. 

For example, if the council meeting is about agriculture the representative would most likely be the Minister of Agriculture. 

 

Lastly, the Parliament is the second part of the legislative branch. As said, the members of the Parliament are chosen by the voters at local elections. 

The problem some countries (especially countries in Western Europe) has is that the number of members a country can elect depends on the size of the population.

Overall this seems like a fair system, however, the countries in Western Europe are not as populous as some of the countries in Eastern Europe, but they still account for most of the revenue generated in the EU. 

What annoys me about MEPs is the fact they only have to clock into the debate to get paid for it, they don't actually have to attend the debate, as long as they clock in they're laughing all the way to the bank.

 

It makes a mockery of the whole system as most of the EU Parliament sessions are almost entirely empty with the politicians stood at the bar drinking whiskey.

 

Could you answer a question for me? Is there an EU Equivalent of the House Of Lords here in England?