Should we leave the EEC?

[OH MY WORLD!]

What keeps Norway and Switzerland out and how are they worse off for staying out of that blessed EU?

[ippy]

What keeps Norway and Switzerland out and how are they worse off for staying out of that blessed EU?

You've got a point pow wow, two of the richest nations in Europe, just take note of their exchange rates.

ippy 

[Elevenses81]

From opinion posted so far we have :

undecided 2
for pulling out 3
for staying in 6

[I think]

[OH MY WORLD!]

What's your point Wallo? Trade agreements are totally different than union between nations. Canada and the EU have only to wait for ratification for the Canda EU free trade deal to be a reality. NO UNION, I'm glad to say.

Norway says NO to EU.

http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/norwegians-eu-membership-ahead-g-news-529950

[ippy]

It would be hard to leave the EEC as it ceased to exist in 1993.
We're in the EU now and long may we remain so.

Quite right on both counts.

Yes the only referendum we had was for joining the EEC, we've not had any say about joining the EU.

ippy

[Hope]

... but I thought that Cameron's anger over the latest demand is entirely synthetic.  He has one eye on the UKIP threat, therefore must be seen to be fulminating over Europe.

The problem with this view, wiggi, is that DC has been fulminating over Europe for just about as long as he has been Tory Party leader.  This ain't anything new.  What would be synthetic would be Messrs Clegg or Mollibland fulminating in this way.

[Hope]

Could you explain your reasons for thinking this?

E, do you have any idea how much European money has been spent in places like the Scottish Highlands, the South Wales Valleys or the North East of England over the last 30 or 40 years?  It comes to £billions.  You can argue that the British (or for that matter, any other nation's) Government could have distributed that much direct, rather than via Europe - but would they have done?  Similarly, you can argue that the money has often not been spent as efficiently as it could have been - but is that Europe's fault or local British (etc.) politicians?  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-15295224 (article dates from 2011)

[Hope]

The February 1974 general election yielded a Labour minority government, which then won a majority in the October 1974 general election. Labour pledged in its February 1974 manifesto to renegotiate the terms of British accession to the EEC, and to then consult the people on whether Britain should stay in the EEC on the new terms if they were acceptable to the government. The Labour Party had traditionally feared the consequences of EEC membership, such as the large differentials between the high price of food under the Common Agricultural Policy and the low prices prevalent in Commonwealth markets, as well as the loss of economic sovereignty and the freedom of governments to engage in socialist industrial policies, and party leaders stated their opinion that the Conservatives had negotiated unfavourable terms for Britain. The EEC heads of government agreed to a deal in Dublin by 11 March 1975; Wilson declared "I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved", and that the government would recommend a vote in favour of continued membership. On 9 April, the House of Commons voted 396 to 170 to continue within the Common Market on the new terms. In tandem with these developments, the government drafted a Referendum Bill, to be moved in case of a successful renegotiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

Does anyone else feel this sounds similar to the current debate?

[Elevenses81]

Hope,

  the pros and cons are hideously complicated, and I dread to imagine what state my brain will be in after expert opinion on both sides of the argument has pulled me this way and that. At the moment we are all preoccupied with foreign criminals claiming under EU Human Rights legislation that UK law infringes their rights to staying in the UK. This seems a simple issue and will be the sort of grievance that will lead many to vote in any referendum to quit the EU. I'm sure what you say about our net income from the EU is in credit, but people don't want to know about that. They see Farage and his lunatic party offering a simplified ladybird book version of the EU where their policies change by the day and are not even endorsed by the leadership, and think it prevents them to doing any research themselves. I suspect we will stay in, but it will be closer this time than in 1975.

[Jack Knave]

It is a curiosity this EU business, isn't it!  I am certainly divided and wouldn't know how to vote in a referendum.  Like Wigs, I have promised myself to do some reading up on it.... but then without getting bogged down in the actual legal stuff, what do you read? 

So far, apart from the 'do we stay in' vote we were offered way back when, we have had no say.  I am still pissed with Gordon Brown for not letting us have our say on the treaty he signed on our behalf, when the rest of Europe had the opportunity to vote.

But then if UKIP want us out, it kinda makes me want to stay in..........

 

The treaty that Gordon Brown signed    

That was the Lisbon Treaty. You can't just suddenly swot up on it at the last minute and think you will get the facts you have to do it as an on going process.

[Jack Knave]

Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.

Yeah, like a hole in the head.

Oh they need us. If we left the EU would collapse.

[Jack Knave]

Harrowby,

  it was a long time ago, but it doesn't alter the fact that I wished to remain in the EEC for the reasons given. Do you think Wilson would have pulled out if the vote had gone the other way?

He lied to the people and basically rigged it. Also, the press were in favour of staying in so there was a lot of pressure on the people to say yes.

[Jack Knave]

If England wants to leave the EU, let them.
We're staying put.

Why?

[Jack Knave]

Should we leave the EU? DEFINITELY NOT! We need them, they need us, imo.

Could you explain your reasons for thinking this?

Britain is a very small country in reality, and we need to be part of Europe, united we stand, divided we fall. We have always looked across the pond in the past to the US for support, but I suspect it won't be so forthcoming in the future unless it is in their interest to support us.

We would be better off out than in the EU which is draining our economy.

[Jack Knave]

I am rather concerned by the obsession with the EU. It seems to me that there is a section of society which can be broadly categorised as the not highly educated lower middle classes in middle life who believe, for some reason, that the "rewards" of life, which they think are due to them, are passing them by. (I say categorisation - I realise that some may consider this close to a caricature.)

They look for a reason and are entranced by slick individual with a passing resemblence to Arthur Daley who tells them that the reasons for this are:
(a) immigrants who, simultaneously, are taking all available jobs and growing rich on welfare benefits as well as monopolising health and education services and
(b) the EU which is submerging our British identity with expensive uncontrolled beaurocracy.

Is this not reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the perceived ills of society were blamed on The Jews?

Should Britain leave the EU expect an early announcement that the Nissan car plant in the North East will close. Nissan is controlled by Renault who would not waste any time in relocating the most efficient car producer in Europe onto French soil.

As far as trade to Europe is concerned, leaving the EU would be an empty gesture. The UK will be faced with all of the existing regulation and "bureaucracy" that it faces now. It costs Switzerland and Norway just as much to trade with the EU (in terms of regulations and bureaucracy) as it does EU members. But being inside the union does mean that a country can influence decision making; being outside the union means having to put up with whatever is thrown at you.

One of Arthur Dal Nigel Farage's claims is that we will be able to trade freely with the rest of the world. Well, don't forget that the competition will then come from the BRICs. Be ready for wages and living standards to fall in order to become competitive. In ten years the UK will be the Argentina of Europe.

I am not totally against Nigel Farage. Like him I believe that the UK needs to reform its preVictorian constitution. I worry that second rate political leaders like Cameron and Milliband are incapable of seeing beyond party advantage and will not seize the opportunities currently presented.

What rubbish. You must be a LibDem twat, as you haven't mentioned Cleggie boy with the other two.

[Jack Knave]

Norway belongs to the EEA, kind of EU lite but lacking the benefit of having any say in the rules that it must adhere to. They still pay a high price for this membership though and their citizens have all those nasty import tariffs to deal with. Switzerland doesn't have that membership but has still negotiated trade deals with the EU that compel it to comply with EU laws without having the chance to influence them.

You really are a dumb ass if you believe all that crap. Seems age doesn't make you wise!!!

[Jack Knave]

Hope,

  the pros and cons are hideously complicated, and I dread to imagine what state my brain will be in after expert opinion on both sides of the argument has pulled me this way and that. At the moment we are all preoccupied with foreign criminals claiming under EU Human Rights legislation that UK law infringes their rights to staying in the UK. This seems a simple issue and will be the sort of grievance that will lead many to vote in any referendum to quit the EU. I'm sure what you say about our net income from the EU is in credit, but people don't want to know about that. They see Farage and his lunatic party offering a simplified ladybird book version of the EU where their policies change by the day and are not even endorsed by the leadership, and think it prevents them to doing any research themselves. I suspect we will stay in, but it will be closer this time than in 1975.

The issue is quite simple. The EU is another version of the USSR. If you thought the Soviet Union would have been a wonderful place to live then vote to stay in the EU but if you want our MP's to run our country without any interference from some corrupt foreign land and have the power to vote them out if you think they are useless (which you can't do with Brussels) then vote to leave and save us £90 billion a year.

[L.A.]

It's almost as if the EU Commission conspired with UKIP  to produce anti-EU sentiment and persuade the British Public to vote for out. I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye?

Someone might have calculated that if they can damage Cameron, Britain might end-up with a pro-EU Socialist government under Red Ed 

[wigginhall]

Another odd thing is that these recalculations are done every year, so the Treasury would know that it was going to happen.  I think it has been done this way since 1995, at the insistence of various governments, including the UK.  Ironically, of course, it has happened because of the British economy doing better than previously anticipated. 

I realized that the Daily Mail published an article on 29 May, saying that the economy was being boosted by various extra activities, including prostitution!  They calculate this as an extra £10 billion.   Does the Treasury not read the Daily Mail?

[Hope]

The treaty that Gordon Brown signed    

That was the Lisbon Treaty. You can't just suddenly swot up on it at the last minute and think you will get the facts you have to do it as an on going process.

But it remains fact that the Labour Government, in common with previous Tory and Labour Governments, failed to give the British people a referendum on the Treaty, which was very nearly upset when the French and the Republic of Ireland initially rejected it in referenda held by those two and several other European nations.  I wonder whether the rise of UKIP would have been as it has been if we had had a referendum at that point of time.

[Hope]

Another odd thing is that these recalculations are done every year, so the Treasury would know that it was going to happen.  I think it has been done this way since 1995, at the insistence of various governments, including the UK.  Ironically, of course, it has happened because of the British economy doing better than previously anticipated.

I think that what has come as a surprise (in that it was only announced a month or so ago) is the fact that the EU calculations have suddenly included the black market economies of the various nations - including prostitution and drug-dealing (though those have been the headline elements, not the only ones).  Should these be being included? If yes, surely Italy - what with the Mafia - ought to have become one of the economic powerhouses of the EU?   

[wigginhall]

Another odd thing is that these recalculations are done every year, so the Treasury would know that it was going to happen.  I think it has been done this way since 1995, at the insistence of various governments, including the UK.  Ironically, of course, it has happened because of the British economy doing better than previously anticipated.

I think that what has come as a surprise (in that it was only announced a month or so ago) is the fact that the EU calculations have suddenly included the black market economies of the various nations - including prostitution and drug-dealing (though those have been the headline elements, not the only ones).  Should these be being included? If yes, surely Italy - what with the Mafia - ought to have become one of the economic powerhouses of the EU?   

Not all that sudden.   The extra British income was announced in May this year, reported in various newspapers.  So presumably the Treasury knew about this, and knew that there would an extra payment required.  It's very like tax for the self-employed - if you make more than you thought you would, there is a back payment due.

So how come the Treasury has kept this quiet?  Are they plotting against Cameron?

Here is the Daily Mail of 29 May, reporting the good news. 

http://tinyurl.com/osycjsa

[Hope]

We would be better off out than in the EU which is draining our economy.

If you call being in credit from Europe 'draining our economy', you need to have a rethink, JK.  Most serious opponents to our continued EU membership don't refer to the economioc position, but to all the corruption and inefficiencies that abound within the system - the fact that the EU accounts have not been been signed off for 17 or 18 years, the unelected Commissioners can produce Directives that hold as much influence as European Parliamentary 'Acts' that have been properly evaluated and voted on, the unnecessary expenditure on two 'headquarters', the farce that is the Community Agricultural Policy which continues to subsidise inefficient French farm practices, etc.

[Hope]

Not all that sudden.   The extra British income was announced in May this year, reported in various newspapers.  So presumably the Treasury knew about this, and knew that there would an extra payment required.  It's very like tax for the self-employed - if you make more than you thought you would, there is a back payment due.

Hi wiggi,I was aware that it was on the cards, but only as a suggestion (I first heard about it from a friend who works within the Brussels set-up about a year ago, when it was being tossed about as a possibility).  I hadn't realised that it had been enacteduntil I heard about on the radio a month or so ago.  This article from Bloomberg Businessweek from May 14 makes interesting reading.  http://tinyurl.com/mzb5en5

[wigginhall]

Not all that sudden.   The extra British income was announced in May this year, reported in various newspapers.  So presumably the Treasury knew about this, and knew that there would an extra payment required.  It's very like tax for the self-employed - if you make more than you thought you would, there is a back payment due.

Hi wiggi,I was aware that it was on the cards, but only as a suggestion (I first heard about it from a friend who works within the Brussels set-up about a year ago, when it was being tossed about as a possibility).  I hadn't realised that it had been enacteduntil I heard about on the radio a month or so ago.  This article from Bloomberg Businessweek from May 14 makes interesting reading.  http://tinyurl.com/mzb5en5

It's not a suggestion.  It has been agreed for years, that extra income would incur a surcharge.  Then in May this year, the UK is credited with extra income, and this seems to be publicized as good news, but of course, it carries more tax. 

Somebody in the Treasury has either been very stupid, or deliberately obfuscating.   Well, it could be both.