Lord Mandelson finally admits we shouldn't join Euro.

[narly101]

I'm with Machiavelli; this argument doesn't convince me for the same reasons he provides. Above all, and in most walks of my life, I believe in co-operation, hence I'm in. Sure, parts are not perfect. But I'd rather be inside shaping the future than isolated and outside.

I'm still an "In". There are a lot benefits of being "Out", but I don't believe they outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

But what people like you continue to ignore is that in order to trade with the EU, we will *still* have to conform to EU standards. It's just that if we are on the outside, we won't get a say on what those standards actually are. Meanwhile, foreign investment will simply ignore the UK and new car plants will be built inside the EU instead, where trade barriers to a market of 400 million people will be considerably easier to overcome.

The whole Brexit argument is a nonsense. And we'd get our way in Europe if our politicians actually politicked properly. Instead, we have David Cameron acting like a tantrumming toddler over pretty much everything - for example who should be the president of the EU commission, where he campaigned to huge affect that Juncker should NOT be that man. And lost the vote 29-2.

Not on open borders we wouldn't, and just look at the way Merkel and the top brass in the EU have decided every other countries destiny when it comes to the distribution of these economic migrants. That's not democracy, that's bullying.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I'm still an "In". There are a lot benefits of being "Out", but I don't believe they outweigh the disadvantages.

What can you see are the benefits of staying in?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Who would you sign up to Europe wide? Who does the streamlining of the trading areas which needs to be in place otherwise you'd just sign up to each of the 26 nations separately? There has to be something in place.

In the 70's the people of the UK voted for a Common Market - that streamlined trade - something I agree with. What the people of the UK HAVEN'T voted for is the current EU setup. Despite being in my mid-forties I've never had a say on the further integration of European states. To me that is undemocratic. Even when countries have had a vote on the changes and have voted against they have been told to vote again until they get the 'right' answer - utterly undemocratic. I do not want to belong to an organisation that imposes laws and regulations on us without the electorate having any say what so ever. I don't want to be part of an organisation that forces people in Greece into poverty, so wastes millions on a circus to move it's corrupt politicians between two places or indeed is so corrupt it can't even get it's accounts signed off for over a decade.

Way back in the 70's I'd have been classed as a nutter if I'd suggested a 'stay' vote would mean a common currency and the possibility of a merged European Army. That begs the question, if we stay, what plans the EU have for even tighter integration over the next forty years - of course they won't tell us. IMO their plans are for a European superstate with a single parliament and no national identities - a nutter opinion possibly but there is no way I'm going to inflict that possibility on my children or my grandchildren.

Out, out and out now.
The best way of dealing with such a corrupt organisation is to leave.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But what people like you continue to ignore is that in order to trade with the EU, we will *still* have to conform to EU standards.

China exports $31bn worth of goods to the EU every year - do they have to conform to EU rules ?

 

[alfredmizen]

Ive yet to be convinced either way, neither side has put forward a DETAILED, coherent argument presenting their case yet.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Ive yet to be convinced either way, neither side has put forward a DETAILED, coherent argument presenting their case yet.

The In campaign have, in a way. The EU is there for all to see.

My problem is that ideologically I'm in favour but not in anything like the current form.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes, the SNP probably are, but even if they tactically want an overall OUT vote, it only works for them if they have an IN vote in Scotland.

Of course. They'll run an IN campaign and Scotland will vote decisively for that. It all depends on what happens in England which will provide both the Conservatives and Labour (and the Lib Dems if anyone's listening) to run a double unionist (UK and EU) campaign, while 'UK'IP are backed into a little Englander corner.

 

[Machiavelli]

The In campaign have, in a way. The EU is there for all to see.

My problem is that ideologically I'm in favour but not in anything like the current form.

I think that's more-or-less where I am too.

 

[beorhthelm]

Who would you sign up to Europe wide? Who does the streamlining of the trading areas which needs to be in place otherwise you'd just sign up to each of the 26 nations separately? There has to be something in place.

how about a body called the European Region Of Trade, Industry and Commerce? there have been and are many trade agreements in history, you dont need a parliament for a trading bloc. you have a parliament for politics and creation of a state.

 

[BigGully]

They should stop rolling out those that are the firmly IN camp, especially when history shows they were wrong, so wrong with the Euro.

Go and find those that foresaw the debacle that the Euro has become.

I was happy to 'dob in' my pound notes for a Euro if as so many eminent MP's and business leaders said would offer unbridled wealth and opportunity for me and my family.

There was only a small gaggle of economist and MP's that foresaw its weakness and likely fall and articulated exactly what was to happen years ahead.

Its those that we need to hear from, those that called it correctly, reasonably argued and formulated reason why they felt it was doomed to failure.

But my god we hear more than ever those Europhiles that got it wrong still shouting louder than ever about the European project, quiet now please, quiet.

 

[beorhthelm]

But what people like you continue to ignore is that in order to trade with the EU, we will *still* have to conform to EU standards.

yes, when trading with those in the EU. what about all the trade and commerce not with EU? and how about if we have a trading bloc that doesn't require a whole raft of standards, rules and laws that dont apply to the products and services being traded? all the arguments about investment where made for the Euro, look how that turned out.

the EU has shown this year it doesnt even work properly, with its failure in Greece and response to the refugee crisis. first sign of a difficult problem and it breaks its own rules.

 

[Simster]

China exports $31bn worth of goods to the EU every year - do they have to conform to EU rules ?

Yes, yes they do. They can't just manufacture and sell paint with lead in it just because it's cheap. They can't just sell toys considered by the EU too dangerous to toddlers. And more pertinently, they can't just sell us cars with emissions that might pass in smoggy Chinese cities but are considered too polluting here.

 

[alfredmizen]

Yes, yes they do. They can't just manufacture and sell paint with lead in it just because it's cheap. They can't just sell toys considered by the EU too dangerous to toddlers. And more pertinently, they can't just sell us cars with emissions that might pass in smoggy Chinese cities but are considered too polluting here.

They still dont have to comply with every little rule and edict though do they , just basic trade and safety rules that most countries will stipulate.

 

[Simster]

yes, when trading with those in the EU. what about all the trade and commerce not with EU? and how about if we have a trading bloc that doesn't require a whole raft of standards, rules and laws that dont apply to the products and services being traded? all the arguments about investment where made for the Euro, look how that turned out.

And why do you keep equating entry to the EU with entry into the Eurozone. They are not the same thing. If they were, how on earth did the EEC/EC/EU survive for DECADES before the € came into force? It is not the same argument at all.

There was always reservation over us joining the € because our economy is structured so differently from large parts of Europe. For a start, we are debt-based because people buy their own houses, which isn't necessarily the culture elsewhere, and yes, the people who had those reservations were proved right. That *doesn't* mean to say that pulling out of the EU entirely isn't a ridiculous idea, because it is. (to me anyway)

 

[alfredmizen]

The In campaign have, in a way. The EU is there for all to see.

My problem is that ideologically I'm in favour but not in anything like the current form.

Not really, they havent really gone into any great detail regarding pros and cons, they just try and scare people into maintaining the status quo.

 

[Simster]

They still dont have to comply with every little rule and edict though do they , just basic trade and safety rules that most countries will stipulate.

I'm curious. In order to trade with EU nations, what little rule and edict do we have to comply with that China doesn't?

 

[Machiavelli]

i cant say i'm not aware of any loss of sovereignty to those organistations. where we have agreed to something at their behest we have signed up to it willfully - theres not much wrong with signing up to a trade deal. the issue with the EU is that one treaty after another is signed off without proper authority of parliament or the population, and that additional powers are sub-marined in under the cover old treaties. and then the proponents of the "European project" dont even play by their own rules, finding loopholes and workarounds to skirt around the conditions they have set. example, we are planning to close all our coal power stations to comply with EU carbon targets, while Germany is building more, hiding them behind industrial use exemptions.

You're using a double negative here, and I'm not entirely sure what you're actually saying but, in response, the concept of sovereignty entails the exercise of control over a people within a designated territory. All of the supranational organisations and exercises of power that I've mentioned (and many others, e.g. Geneva Convention) involved the loss of sovereignty yet it's ignored within popular political discourses. I find that strange, but am not surprised by it.
To take one of your examples: EU-carbon targets, this flows from inter-/supranational agreements made to tackle climate change, but it is the EU that is formulating policy to implement the required changes, and it is actually the continental/national/regional body that is taking the matter most seriously.

 

[alfredmizen]

I'm curious. In order to trade with EU nations, what little rule and edict do we have to comply with that China doesn't?

death penalty(not that im advocating it) , off of the top of my head , there are plenty if i could be bothered to search , both trade related and others, emissions policy, there are lots .

 

[Triggaaar]

But what people like you continue to ignore is that in order to trade with the EU, we will *still* have to conform to EU standards. It's just that if we are on the outside, we won't get a say on what those standards actually are.

We seem to have very little power in the EU, so I suspect we have very little say of what those standards are anyway. Presumably we'd have to conform in the same way that other non EU countries, like Switzerland and China do. We can manage that can't we?

Meanwhile, foreign investment will simply ignore the UK and new car plants will be built inside the EU instead, where trade barriers to a market of 400 million people will be considerably easier to overcome.

Do you have the facts on the trade barriers to the EU market, and why car manufacturers couldn't produce vehicles here?

And we'd get our way in Europe if our politicians actually politicked properly. Instead, we have David Cameron acting like a tantrumming toddler over pretty much everything

So it's Cameron's fault that we get a shit deal, not every government before him? You're saying we'd get our way if... Well the fact is we don't get our way, and there's no evidence to suggest that will change. There's a lot of corruption in the EU, and Britain is a bit rubbish at corruption. We're generally against it, while others see it as a basic part of business.