BREXIT - leave or remain?

[Raakel]

This is written from my perspective as a German outsider.

In my opinion the EU needs a total revamp, i.e. a new agenda/plan in order to catch up with current econimic and political developments. In many EU countries people shift to the right because they see the EU as a bureaucratic and slow monster and beeing forced into things they don't want. I think you have to "de-europarize" some economic and political parts in order to account for that and regain sympathy for the european idea.

Merkel forcing other countries into things they don't want has to stop. For example If the majority of states refuse to accept more refugees it's their own democratic (not racist) decision. Period. There's no use in taking this any further as it will just shift people to the right even more and hate us Germans again.

I honestly wish Britain would truly become great again. There was quite a sell out of their own brands and industry and it appears (to me) the only thing left is the financial sector. It might feel as if they lost their identity and you need to bring that back somehow. That's what the Brexit guys might hope for.

I feel more connected to northern EU states like Britain , Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, etc.. than any of the eastern or southern parts. Turkey is in no way european to me and they have proven many times that we don't share the same values. Both sides need to respect each other and that's it - but I don't see that.

In many ways the EU feels like a dead end and somehow on hold. Europe has to evolve in some ways... I can understand Brits saying it's no good for them but think something would be missing without them.

Merkel and other EU advocates have to realize and respect that the european people want to keep their own identity and representation. For example I come from the state of Lower Saxony in Germany and to me Bavaria is like a differnt country (like England vs Wales). We mostly feel more like Lower Saxonians than Germans but in football we unite.

[Noradin]

I used to smoke with menthol tips and I quit in November so I don't care. The article does a great job illustrating one of the underlying issues in Britain's legislative relationship with the EU, it prompts us to make a law and then we push beyond it and legislate harder than the rest of the EU does.

Not the other way around?
You could just as well claim the UK prompted it and got the other member states to make legislation almost as strikt as the UK was planning.
Of course they would wait to implement their own laws until after they reached an agreement in the EU, having to potentially redo them for some formality of no real consequence would be a waste of tax money, after all. (And they would lose the ability to direkt the upset smokers at their favorite scapegoat.)

- - - Updated - - -

Gove says government 'working towards' Turkey joining EU -

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36513022

Of course they do. You can work towards something and never plan to reach it at the same time (it's called an asymptote in maths).

What would you prefer for a neighbour, someone with values more like your own, or someone who disagrees with everything you say on principle?
When they call it "working towards Turkey joining the EU", they mostly mean "working towards making them fulfill more of the conditions we set them".
Obviously politicans of any official capacity and any regard for their country cannot word it like that as it would cause a diplomatic incident for absolutely no gain for anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeh, not voting in this referendum, feel like I've been smashed about by both sides and all they've managed to do is convince me they are useless and that a vote either way really won't make a great deal of difference.

In the end all it really boils down to is a rather petty argument as to which group of ridiculous morons get to indulge their massive egos.

You could still look up the facts and ignore the campainers on both sides.
Better than letting them shout you down with nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Merkel forcing other countries into things they don't want has to stop. For example If the majority of states refuse to accept more refugees it's their own democratic (not racist) decision. Period. There's no use in taking this any further as it will just shift people to the right even more and hate us Germans again.

She is not forcing them, she couldn't.
At most, she is holding them to the treaties they signed in the past (and those are independent of the EU).

If you sing a contract about something, take the money and then back out, that has consequences.
Why should it be any different for countries?

[Deleted]

Yeh, not voting in this referendum, feel like I've been smashed about by both sides and all they've managed to do is convince me they are useless and that a vote either way really won't make a great deal of difference.

In the end all it really boils down to is a rather petty argument as to which group of ridiculous morons get to indulge their massive egos.

You're crazy if you do not think this is one of the most important and influential votes the modern world has ever seen and as a UK resident you get to to control it!

The UK has grown to be the 4th largest economy in the world while part of the EU. The fastest growing advanced economy. It is the 2nd largest economy in the EU, controls the 2nd largest net contribution to the EU, has the 4th lowest unemployment in the EU. It fully controls its own sovereign currency. The UK has the most opt-outs and the ability to force agreement on new ones all the time within the EU, this makes it the most sovereign country within the EU, as well its influence often giving back powers to other states that they in future realize they needed or would welcome.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say if there ever was a vote more important than this one, it would require going back deep into the past.

This vote is also completely unlike the UK's electoral system, thankfully. Since most of the UK electoral system employs First Past the Post, a dated and almost unique voting system these days, that favors the incumbent government, small constituencies, a two party majority system, an inability to separate party vs person vote, and a ton of other flaws that effectively means most votes count for literally nothing, it results in disenfranchising entire groups of people and discourages voting, especially young voters.

By contrast, in the very few referendums that ever occur in medium-sized or large countries, it is One Person One Vote, the very essence of democracy and your vote will make a difference. Not voting may result in a low turnout that can and does result in completely unexpected change.

If you don't vote, if you can, in a once in a lifetime referendum and on an issue that actually matters, I can guarantee you will regret it and your future generations will consider you an idiot! That is the one thing that both sides do agree on.

[Raakel]

She is not forcing them, she couldn't.
At most, she is holding them to the treaties they signed in the past (and those are independent of the EU).

If you sing a contract about something, take the money and then back out, that has consequences.
Why should it be any different for countries?

I work for an international broking company and sometimes we let big customers back out in order to keep the client and be able to continue to do business. Might not be 100% compareable and honorable but that's how it works everywhere.

[Mehrunes]

Just in case some (most?) EU people haven't heard of Donald "five limos" Tusk, this is the guy that UK taxpayers pay £250000 a year in
salary to plus at least 50k in expenses. What does he do for this money?

It may come off as a surprise to you, but UK doesn't pay for everything in EU. To claim that UK taxpayers pay for the entirety of Tusk's salary is asinine.

[Kronik85]

Not the other way around?
You could just as well claim the UK prompted it and got the other member states to make legislation almost as strikt as the UK was planning.
Of course they would wait to implement their own laws until after they reached an agreement in the EU, having to potentially redo them for some formality of no real consequence would be a waste of tax money, after all. (And they would lose the ability to direkt the upset smokers at their favorite scapegoat.)

Unless you think the UK is secretly pulling the strings of the EU legislature then no, no you couldn't.

[Noradin]

I work for an international broking company and sometimes we let big customers back out in order to keep the client and be able to continue to do business. Might not be 100% compareable and honorable but that's how it works everywhere.

Yes, and they want recompense for that...

- - - Updated - - -

Unless you think the UK is secretly pulling the strings of the EU legislature then no, no you couldn't.

But you can just claim someone else is secretly pulling the strings?
On what grounds do you base such an assumption, or is it simply the fact that it is your assumtion that makes it better than others?

[Kronik85]

But you can just claim someone else is secretly pulling the strings?
On what grounds do you base such an assumption, or is it simply the fact that it is your assumtion that makes it better than others?

I've not made any assumptions, I pointed out that the EU presents the UK with mandates and our own Parliament has been known to go above and beyond what was actually called for. I've no idea what all this conspiracy nonsense is about.

In relation to cigarettes the EU said that packaging can no longer target women, leave room for health warnings and feature no promotional statements, our own Parliament then decided that this wasn't going far enough and instead now all packaging must be uniform with large health warnings.

What I'm pointing out is that it's our own Parliament that is often the one going HAM.

[Teleros]

Apologies, but I was away for a few days without proper internet access.

Yes, that is because the UK does not seem to understand multi party systems, thus they assume there must be one at the top who dictates everything.

You misunderstand: I understand entirely how compromises work in politics. The problem is that I think many in the UK think the "give and take" bit is unfair to the UK - "we give and they take" rather than "we give and we take", if you will.

Or... if we give up £10bn worth of something in negotiations with another country, we should expect £10bn worth of something back, right? But if we give £10bn but only get £2bn back, that's not a good deal, all things being equal.

Since that isn't the position the UK takes in the EU (because nobody does) they assume they get no say whatsoever.

Oh no, the UK gets a say. It just never (well, nearly never) gets the result it wants :P .

Maybe in a few centuries when they get a proper democracy going they might understand the rest of the EU?

Long live first past the post, and down with everything else !

In the other post you called it "the dominating member", which implies that it is the only influential member, which in turn means that it cannot be "a" very influential member, because that would imply there are several, thus none could "dominate".

I think you can have several influential parties, of which one dominates. That doesn't mean it gets its way all the time though.

Anyway, I think we're quibbling over semantics at this point. Germany is a major player in the EU, and with several other UK-friendly governments will probably help avoid unreasonable tariffs etc between the UK & EU post-Brexit.

= + =

No they are comparable - and it has nothing to do with expense.

I can't really conceive of the City's top banks wiping Paris, Berlin, Rome and all the rest off the face of the map with just a few minutes warning.

I can conceive of Soviet nukes launched from Cuba doing the same to Miama et al in the USA.

I mean unless Barclays really does have neutron bombs planted in various EU cities, of course.

/shrug

[Bellfour]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...s-seized-power

Interesting perspective on the debate.

I was stunned by this quote (I am assuming it is correct!!)......"Europe's nations should be guided towards the Super-state without their people understanding what is happening" Jean Monnet

[Deleted]

As a citizen of a fringe, post-communistic state, i sincerely hope UK remains.
Where else would we get our EU-funds for stuff and where will our gipsies will import money from begging and stealing?
Both those sources are a major factors in our economy.
So please, Brits, vote remain!

[Kallisto]

You sound desperate for Britain to stay.

Why is that?

Because I am not a nationalist idiot and logic points towards staying in.

[Deleted]

So please, Brits, vote remain!

BG and RO should be kicked out.

[Noradin]

I've not made any assumptions, I pointed out that the EU presents the UK with mandates and our own Parliament has been known to go above and beyond what was actually called for. I've no idea what all this conspiracy nonsense is about.

Yes, and I pointed out that this indicated that the politicans in the UK wanted to implement those legislations anyway and just couldn't get the whole of the EU to follow them all the way, so they ended up the ones with the most wide-reaching legislation.

As you can see, there is no conspiracy theory. Actually, "the EU foces stuff on the UK" would fit the definition of conspiracy theory since it has been explained several times in this thread that the EU isn't forcing things on the UK. The memberstates make agreements with each other, they do not force each other to do so. What you are complaining about is that someone is taking you by your word and expects you to keep your part of the deals you made and profited from.

[Deleted]

Because I am not a nationalist idiot and logic points towards staying in.

sad thing is alot of people are wanting to leave, polls suggest this and even bookies have better odds for leaving, but in the end all we can do is tick the box and post it in the ballot box after that we cant do shit

[Noradin]

Oh no, the UK gets a say. It just never (well, nearly never) gets the result it wants :P .

No one making a compromise ever gets exactly the result that favours them the most.
And you always have to make compromises. Unless of course you win in a FPTP voting system. Then you can dictate your terms and don't need to compromise.
That is what I meant with "the UK does not seem to understand multi-party systems." They are used to having one winner and one looser in politics, and the winner gets to dictate terms.
And when they do not see their own proposition at the end, exactly as they have proposed it, then they assume they got no say at all in the matter.

[Teleros]

No one making a compromise ever gets exactly the result that favours them the most.

Exactly - never said otherwise.

That is what I meant with "the UK does not seem to understand multi-party systems." They are used to having one winner and one looser in politics, and the winner gets to dictate terms.

I think we did pretty well under the coalition government. Well, except for the Lib Dem voters, but that's different*.

And when they do not see their own proposition at the end, exactly as they have proposed it, then they assume they got no say at all in the matter.

Some may say that, but my experience has been that we understand how compromises work just fine - but as a cost-benefit analysis, the EU costs too much for the relatively meagre benefits it brings to the UK.

*I think for a lot of Lib Dems (not one myself so take this with a grain of salt) they could vote for all sorts of fantastic policies, yet never have to test those policies in reality. When they did, messy old reality royally screwed over the policies, and Lib Dem support in the following (ie the last) election tanked as a result. So in that sense, I think you're right in the UK not liking compromises - but I think we understand it just fine in international (eg EU) matters.

[Deleted]

BG and RO should be kicked out.

You wouldn't want that. If not for us, who would spend your hard earned cash?

[Noradin]

Some may say that, but my experience has been that we understand how compromises work just fine - but as a cost-benefit analysis, the EU costs too much for the relatively meagre benefits it brings to the UK.

I do not think we can solve that disagreement in a thread like this since it depends heavily on the metric used to asses those benefits and neither of us has the time to spend on doing the assessment so we have to rely on others for that and any calculation would involve substantial specualtion regarding the monetary benefits and the monetary value of non-monetary benefits is a matter of opinion anyway.

I for my part are convinced the benefits the EU offers the UK are worth the costs, thus I think it would be best for the UK to stay; but that is just my advice as an ally in this which you can take or leave.
It should not be confused with my predictions what the consequences of either choice might be, nor with what I think might be best for the EU.

I think the consequences for the UK if they decide to leave will have to be dire, and it might even turn out for the better of the EU to be rid of the constant complaints and exceptions. Still I am adverse to just let friends run of what I see as a cliff without warning them--despite it being potentially beneficial to me to let them jump.

[Kronik85]

Yes, and I pointed out that this indicated that the politicans in the UK wanted to implement those legislations anyway and just couldn't get the whole of the EU to follow them all the way, so they ended up the ones with the most wide-reaching legislation.

You got a source saying British MPs wanted to make the EU adopt stricter controls on smoking packaging to support this claim?

As you can see, there is no conspiracy theory. Actually, "the EU foces stuff on the UK" would fit the definition of conspiracy theory since it has been explained several times in this thread that the EU isn't forcing things on the UK. The memberstates make agreements with each other, they do not force each other to do so. What you are complaining about is that someone is taking you by your word and expects you to keep your part of the deals you made and profited from.

An excellent reply to points I never said and complaints I've never made :S. Reread what was written after you've calmed down abit.