The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
Thought it would be good to gauge opinion on one of the most important upcoming decisions to determine the future of the U.K.
In sure it is likely to be every bit as divisive and emotive as the countless debates about our former manager and captain!!
In sure it is likely to be every bit as divisive and emotive as the countless debates about our former manager and captain!!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1. A seven-year term for the 'emergency brake' to restrict EU migrants in the UK claiming in-work benefits.
2. Child benefit payments indexed to the cost of living for children living outside the UK
3. Any single non-eurozone country able to trigger a debate about ‘problem’ eurozone laws.
4. An opt-out stating that EU treaty references to 'ever-closer union' don't apply to the UK.
I would have voted 'in' before this 'new deal', and will still vote 'in' (if I'm eligible to vote, which I think I will be).
I wonder if anyone who would have voted out before, will be persuaded otherwise now. ;hmm
This new "deal" is just tinkering and will probably be torn up by the EU at the first opportunity anyway.
I am English but also European and happy to work closely with Europe but I am not happy to be in a position where we have so little control over what can and cannot be done in our own country. I am happy to be a member of a European Free Trade area, which is all the British People have ever had the opportunity to vote for/against, we have never been given the right to vote for the European Project as it now is.
One of the discussions that sums it all up for me is this new position where 55% of European sovereign governments have to be against a European law/regulation/decision before the European Government will reconsider it (not change it). Once re-considered they can still implement it even though a majority is against it. This is clearly not a democracy.
8 In, 2 Out and 1 Undecided
The UK is a signatory to the Convention on Human Rights. If we left the EU, we'd still be bound by that signature.
Personally speaking, I think if the UK has done anything good in the international stage it is to stand up for human rights and take a lead in establishing the UN Convention on Human Rights to secure rights for ALL of us - I think we should be proud of that, not try to weaken it.
The facts, rather than the myths: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-mythbuster
I do agree that the Human Rights legislation often comes across on the side of the wrong-doer rather than the victim and just wish some of our judges would stand up to the injustice that appears to be delivered all too often.
And I hear a lot about control. But what, exactly, do we not have control of. Which specific law would the out camp actually repeal or introduce.
And it is a myth that the size and shape and method of weighing food is somehow subject to EU control against our will. And even if it was, really, so what.
My main hope is that it is debated intelligently and the debate should not focus upon this deal which is getting all the headlines. I am not sure the figure saved through this brake on in work benefits and child benefit are really significant enough to be worthy of consideration with regard in or out. Ideologically the benefit system through the EU is flawed but to decide on that is a bit like deciding to sell your house because you don't like the curtains, there may be good reasons to sell your house but curtains is not one of them, and so there may be good reason to leave but the figures amounted to through those issues are not one. The deal for protection for the city of London was about 100 times more important but seen as secondary to the benefits issue as that is the one the media have got everyone stirred up about.
The main problem with the EU is that it has grown too fast in an all or nothing gamble, it is a brilliant idea to have the main nations of Europe form a union as the aims and benefits are shared. Once the poorer nations were included it started to go wrong, they should have had free trade but not movement or shared currency.
Ultimately I find an awful lot wrong with the EU but I just think we are already too far in and the risk of leaving too great. It may be better to take this deal even though it amounts to little and should the EU unravel anyhow which is always a possibility due to popular uprising then we can leave in an orderly fashion with everyone else, but to take the risk of being the first to leave and see if we can make it better on our own would be too risky.
So at this present moment I am IN.
Do you really think a German company which has a strong, positive and profitable
trading relationship with a British company will stop trading with it or impose punitive restrictions because Britain leaves the EU? I for one don't.
What I'm keen to hear from the IN campaign is the positive reasons for staying in, rather than the threats and negative reasons for not staying in.
Comments like an exit being a "threat to our national security" from our own prime minister are really not helpful. Is he serious? What's his rationale? We live in a society where people are prepared to randomly blow themselves and innocent people up, all whilst we are members of the EU. Personally speaking, over the last twenty years or so I feel very much less safe in this country than previously. That's not to say leaving the EU will necessarily make me feel more safe, but I certainly won't feel any more safe by staying in either.
And therefore that a strong economic argument for staying in is that the UK govt on its own negotiating with other countries on an individual basis is unlikely to be able to negotiate such advantageous terms (since the UK market is relatively small) when compared with the power of the EU to negotiating on behalf of its member states (since that market is huge).
I know that refers to European countries trading with those outside the EU - but isn't the principle the same?
And so won't this be bad for UK businesses, because they will be competing in markets with EU-based companies who have an advantage over them?
But security isn't just related to terrorist threat.
Not being in the EU doesn't mean we aren't part of NATO, etc? And on the point of national security, and going it alone, etc, how have the likes of Switzerland coped?
And having everybody's money. ;biggrin
Especially Rosie Redknapp's