# Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Un



## golfgtidude (Feb 12, 2016)

What everyones opinions on this

I am thinking we should get out


----------



## StratMan (Nov 23, 2015)

Definitely out.


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)

Following on from voting UKIP, I'm voting leave.... Can you set a poll on first post?/?

The referendum question is "'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

And the responses would be 'Remain a member of the European Union' or 'Leave the European Union'


----------



## Tangerine Knight (Jul 25, 2010)

Out


----------



## golfgtidude (Feb 12, 2016)

spike said:


> Following on from voting UKIP, I'm voting leave.... Can you set a poll on first post?/?
> 
> The referendum question is "'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
> 
> And the responses would be 'Remain a member of the European Union' or 'Leave the European Union'


Thanks for the info


----------



## golfgtidude (Feb 12, 2016)

No advantage to stay in the EU..

I want our indepence and Sovereignty power back


----------



## spike (Dec 26, 2013)




----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Out for me.

Perhaps the £39 million per day that gets paid into the EU could then be diverted into the infrastructure of our country like road improvements,care for the elderly, their carers, and better health care etc.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

leopard said:


> Out for me.
> 
> Perhaps the £39 million per day that gets paid into the EU could then be diverted into the infrastructure of our country like road improvements,care for the elderly, their carers, and better health care etc.


Well, £39 million/day sounds a lot but our net contribution to the EU is actually only about 0.5% of GDP, and it's estimated the direct net economic benefit to us of membership is more than ten times that. So, it's not as simple as just leaving the EU and getting a juicy £39 million a day to spend on worthy causes. We need to be damn sure we can make as much money from outside the EU as we can from inside it in order to make up the shortfall should we leave.

I've yet to see a 'leave' argument that makes any coherent sense, because at best they all rely on suppositions about what life will be like outside the EU and at worst they simply misrepresent the current situation in order to make life outside Europe sound rosier than it really is. It's very similar to the Scottish referendum in that respect - the 'leave' campaign has no facts regarding life for Britain outside the EU (after all, they don't have a crystal ball) but rather than admit this, they just take their 'wish list' and pretend it's all going to come true.


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

What worries me is most big businesses say we should stay.
What do they know that MP's do not


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> > Out for me.
> ...


This


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

pas_55 said:


> What worries me is most big businesses say we should stay.
> What do they know that MP's do not


Plenty I would think, given how little many MPs seem to know about anything...

I'm currently a "stay".

There's plenty wrong with the EU, but I'd rather we were in and actively engaged in getting it changed and being a much more active member in future than we have been in the past. Rather than flouncing off on the dubious assumption that we'll then be able to go back and negotiate to keep all the stuff we like (every trade benefit) while ditching everything we'd rather avoid (contributions, labour rules, product standards etc.). 
The problem for the "out" campaign is they can't say what out will look like. That's not their fault, it's simply because it's impossible to know, For one, it's not in our hands - we'll have to negotiate what it looks like and the remaining 27 countries (unlikely to be in the best of moods) will need to agree.

I also don't buy the view that being out will produce more opportunity in a globalised world - especially when negotiating deals with China, India, US and so on - as an individual economy rather than as one of the biggest members of a bloc that has over 6 times the GDP and over 7 times the population. In theory we'll have more freedom/sovereignty to negotiate what we want from a deal. But sovereignty isn't the same as influence and power: what _we_ want only matters if we have the ability to impose it on whoever we're negotiating with.

Having said all that, I'm certainly going to look into the pros and cons and arguments from both sides, so not completely closed to changing sides.


----------



## golfgtidude (Feb 12, 2016)

Cameron is staying we should stay in the EU but he has also said he won't run for a 3rd term which makes me think that he and the EU have got an agreement to give him a job after.

Blair stitchd us up big time and look at him now 140k a day for leactuers and we also give him police guard


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

Stay but stop giving stuff away to new arrivals who haven't ever paid in the the NHS or anything.

My opinion, the idea of the EU was flawed from the start, you can't make it a 'common market' and then have different tax and benefit systems, different economies (as Greece is finding out) etc.

The only way is was ever going to work was if it just became one big country, with exactly the same rules and everything for everyone.

Problem now is no one actually knows what will happen and both the in and out camps are trying to scare people into their views


----------



## jjg (Feb 14, 2010)

drjam said:


> pas_55 said:
> 
> 
> > What worries me is most big businesses say we should stay.
> ...


I'm a stay.

I agree with the post above. If we left we would probably see the financial centre of the City prosper and expand but the risk to wider trade would be a worry.

I also don't buy into the UKIP rhetoric of leaving would reduce entrants into the Country, If we left the Europe Union how long would France continue to staff and pay for additional infrastructure at the channel ports. UK staff there would likely return to our side of the water. There would likely be a sharp and prompt increase of migrants coming over. The courts here would block whole sale repatriation (and I can't recall the last time I saw Borders Agency staff at a port).


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

I am out

Leaving the EU would not mean our security would be threatened, we would remain key members of NATO. The Americans are good friends (although the idea of the idiot Trump as potential president doesnt inspire confidence). Intellegence co-operation will continue.

I dont believe trade would be affected - being a member of the European Free Trade Zone (EFTA) would give us the same access to Europe that we have now. Anyway we are in a global economy,compared to 20 years ago the internet has made global trading (both financial and commodity) instantaneous.

The referendum is about whether we want to be ruled by Europe as a state within the "United States of Europe" a group of 28 dissimilar states with massively different economies, cultures (at one extreme reliance on horse and carts), languages and wealth trying to act as one.

Now to put that into perspective, there is a 400 year old union of states, where the wealth is not so dissimilar, they all speak the same language and yet even after 400years there is a very strong separatist movement, so much so, one state left 100 years ago, for two more states there has been a massive political devolution (one has even had a referendum on leaving this union - and having lost want another in case they can win). That union of course is the United Kingdom. If after 400 years this union is showing signs of breaking up what chance has the "United States of Europe"?

We dont need political integration, what we need is political co-operation. EFTA will look after trade, NATO security, political co-operation the rest.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> > Out for me.
> ...


+1 and if we opted for out it would likely bring about the break up of the UK regarding the Scottish referendum re-visited as no doubt would happen very quickly. As before - stronger together and wishful thinking with no demonstrable evidence as to benefit but plenty risk regarding break up otherwise.


----------



## CWM3 (Mar 4, 2012)

I think this is will be a vote where the voting public will be totally ill informed, not given the full facts and will end up largely voting on the fear factor of unlimited immigration, jobs for immigrants and fears over losing sovereignty.

Bottom line is that we signed up for this euro adventure, then have f**ked around on the sidelines alienating just about every other country within the EU, asking for special status when we don't like the look of where it is going.

The last Labour administration decided on a policy of unchecked immigration, which they now admit was a disaster, plus successive governments have done very little to check benefit abuse by anyone, ultimately leading to a situation whereby anyone outside of this country, living in a s**thole thinks the streets are paved with gold. That's feck all to do with the EU,its more to do with weak governments pandering to every sob case out on the street for votes.

As a nation we are the architects of our own downfall, as usual we think we are owed one and everyone is against us.

The bottom line is in or out, your local MP and those above have no concern, other than for themselves, so basically we are on our own as citizens.

If we leave, personally I think the EU will slowly turn the screw on us, led by the Germans and French, for payback, we will have even less influence on the global stage, the Scots will accelerate their plans for a second referendum, and this time win it, Corbyn will win the next election and then roll over, stick his ass in the air and let everyone else ***k him and us royally.

Have a good day fellow TT drivers


----------



## pas_55 (May 9, 2002)

golfgtidude said:


> Cameron is staying we should stay in the EU but he has also said he won't run for a 3rd term which makes me think that he and the EU have got an agreement to give him a job after.


To be fair he also stated this before the last election when asked


----------



## golfgtidude (Feb 12, 2016)

True he did.

Still think its will be much better if we were out.


----------



## TTMBTT (Jul 22, 2010)

Spandex said:


> leopard said:
> 
> 
> > Out for me.
> ...


And this is why everyone should consider very closely the debate on such a crucial vote, suspect they wont and we will end up with the masses being led on a whim by highly paid bullshitting politicians. Trump would be proud.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

TTMBTT said:


> And this is why everyone should consider very closely the debate on such a crucial vote, but they *wont* and we will end up with the masses being *uninformed and voting* on *bullshit from* highly paid politicians *more interested in their careers - plus typical scare-mongering from both sides in the media.* Trump would be proud.


----------



## Bennett (Jun 22, 2011)

I agree that this vote will be ill informed and will be surrounded by ALOT of smoke and mirrors. Every news outlet, Politician, online discussion etc provides so many contrasting views that its almost impossible to gain a clear perspective as to who is simply looking after their own interests and who is looking out for the nation. Any official government issued information will no doubt be skewed towards that parties own beliefs.

I think this will ultimately come down to the 'spirit' of the British populous, are we as a nation risk takers or are we more reserved and cautious. Im on the side of out atm however i fully admit that i do not know all the facts. Hopefully by the time June comes round someone will have simplified things enough for the majority of us to make an informed and correct decision.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The world is shrinking, not expanding, and we're not the colonial power house that we were even a century ago.

It makes no sense to go it alone, things will be harder - which means higher costs for you and me. Sure there is a lot of crap in the EU, but probably no more so than in our own government. Whilst we're a part of the EU we have an influence over the crapiness. Being out means we have no influence, but will still have to put up with the most of it.

The reality of a lot of the hot-topics around trade is that none of this will change (for the better, at least). If we leave the EU we'll have to negotiate other trade agreements, but being outside of the EU there is no real need to come to an amicable agreement. We're a lot more dependant on trade from Europe (where did your last car come from) than they are from us? Despite that, 50% of our exports go to Europe - with no free trade that's likely to get more expensive.

Now I'm one to disagree with Spandex wherever possible, but he's entirely right, there is no sound argument for leaving. If you don't like Europe, start writing your MEP and MP about the issues that concern you. Sticking our collective heads in the sand is only going to make things worse in the long-run.

I happen to work for a UK focused company - but a lot of industry is not just national - how much problem do you think they'll have abandoning UK shores for better profits across the channel?


----------



## IC_HOTT (May 29, 2010)

mighTy Tee said:


> I am out
> 
> Leaving the EU would not mean our security would be threatened, we would remain key members of NATO. The Americans are good friends (although the idea of the idiot Trump as potential president doesnt inspire confidence). Intellegence co-operation will continue.
> 
> ...


+1 I think we really need to find this out - theres only one way and that's to experience getting out. We have the experience of in and there's much not to like ......


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

More importantly, don't lose your biscuits :?

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/10/britains- ... l-5744130/


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I see Boris Johnson had accused President Obama of outrageous hypocrisy over his appeal for Britain to stay in the EU, saying that the US would not accept loss of sovereignty to an overseas power.

I presume by overseas he means the channel. Is that the best argument he can come up with?

I would have thought that the more obvious corollary was that the USA is a United States with both state and national government and does rather well for itself, I believe, as a union.

Perhaps Boris should suggest to Obama that the US would be better off split up into completely independent states and each to negotiate individual trade agreements with the rest of the world. Perhaps he should test out his argument there :wink:


----------

