Should We Leave the EU?

[Senex]

In my experience you can group the Poles in with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia etc) as they all speak good English and seem to want to integrate and co-operate with the Brits, and their way of life.

Personally, I would also group together (though they would hate it !) the Czechs, Slovaks, Roumanians and Bulgarians - seemingly not quite so good at the English language, nor quite the same work ethic and probably less interested in integration.

I agree with what you say but would want to make just one change to your lists, but switching the Czechs to the first group. These are all people who share a great measure of cultural background and attitudes with us and who seem to have no problems in fitting in to our society. Indeed, many of them communicate in our language far better than a good many who were born here or have lived here for most of their lives.

 

[Butts]

Like I said before, there are positive and negative aspects about the European Union. The free flow of goods and services between the UK and western European nations is beneficial to all of those nations. However, what I don't like about the European Union is that it has become a quasi-government entity. The EU makes decisions that are in the best interests of the entire union, not just a particular country. The migrant crisis is one of many examples. Most of the migrants want a better life for themselves. Unfortunately, some of them want to turn Europe into Iran. In addition, the EU also consists of Eastern European nations with weaker economies. The stronger EU nations often subsidise the weaker nations (example: what happened in Greece a few years ago).

The UK is a world superpower, yet it has no control over its immigration policies. Everyone should be free to enter the UK, provided they become productive people who conform to the culture of the country. It's unfair to be forced to blindly accept migrants.

Not since WW2 I'm afraid - or perhaps Suez.

 

[anme]

Like I said before, there are positive and negative aspects about the European Union. The free flow of goods and services between the UK and western European nations is beneficial to all of those nations. However, what I don't like about the European Union is that it has become a quasi-government entity. The EU makes decisions that are in the best interests of the entire union, not just a particular country.

That's a bizarre (satirical?) complaint! How do you suggest they make decisions? By favouring one particular country?

Why do you think the flow of goods and services between the UK and Eastern European countries is a bad thing?

The migrant crisis is one of many examples. Most of the migrants want a better life for themselves. Unfortunately, some of them want to turn Europe into Iran. In addition, the EU also consists of Eastern European nations with weaker economies. The stronger EU nations often subsidise the weaker nations (example: what happened in Greece a few years ago).

True of any union. Stronger parts of the UK subsidise weaker parts. Eastern European economies are growing much faster than Western European economies. In a few years, the flow may be the other way.

The UK is a world superpower, yet it has no control over its immigration policies. Everyone should be free to enter the UK, provided they become productive people who conform to the culture of the country. It's unfair to be forced to blindly accept migrants.

This is simply nonsense. The UK is not part of the Schengen agreement. EU migrants have a reciprocal right to live and work in the UK, but non-EU migrants do not. There is discussion about how to distribute refugees across the EU, but there is no legal compulsion for a particular country to take refugees. There may be a moral compulsion, of course.

 

[Oswyntail]

Shouldn't making decisions in the best interest of the whole union be an advantage? ....

Yes. However, the picture is considerably muddied by the Euro. (IMHO, the Euro is a concept that cannot be successful without complete national integration of all participating countries. Therefore it will fail). The Euro is not a part of the EU, but some of the leading countries act as if it is. Economic decisions have been taken for the benefit of the Euro system, or at very least to bolster it, but which are detrimental to the overall health of the EU. If there were a way of separating the Euro from the EU it might be better, but there would then be endless clashes and stagnation, inability to act.

 

[Robertj21a]

I agree with what you say but would want to make just one change to your lists, but switching the Czechs to the first group. These are all people who share a great measure of cultural background and attitudes with us and who seem to have no problems in fitting in to our society. Indeed, many of them communicate in our language far better than a good many who were born here or have lived here for most of their lives.

I think I probably agree with you. The Czechs were very much a borderline case for me but those I've met certainly exhibit more of the attributes I associate with the Poles and Baltic States.

 

[Phil.]

Short answer - yes.

 

[WessexEclectic]

Readers may find the excellent BBC TV series 'The Poisoned Chalice' informative...

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

 

[deltic]

In my experience you can group the Poles in with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia etc) as they all speak good English and seem to want to integrate and co-operate with the Brits, and their way of life.

Personally, I would also group together (though they would hate it !) the Czechs, Slovaks, Roumanians and Bulgarians - seemingly not quite so good at the English language, nor quite the same work ethic and probably less interested in integration.

For me, that also raises the issue of migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. It's only my personal view but I seriously doubt that sufficient of them will contribute much to the good of Britain as a whole. They start from a totally different perspective of what makes up our British culture, customs, and general way of life. It's not a racist view (I would expect the same problems if I was to try living in any of their countries) but it is, in my view, a fair and honest assessment.

A lot may well depend on what happens with migration - and with Turkey - in the coming weeks but if the EU wants to meddle with lots of other countries, and then wants to demand compliance for migration quotas, settlements etc from all member states, then I feel it's time I voted for Brexit.

It is always dangerous to stereotype nationalities. In my working life I have had the pleasure to work with people from a wide range of countries including those from Bulgaria and Romania and found them to be hard working and have good English. One of most impressive people I have met was a female Afghan refugee.

The same issues were raised in the past with large scale Irish migration into the UK. Different religion, supposedly loyal to a foreign power (in this case the Vatican), and if you had done opinion polls in the 1970s you probably would have found large scale support for the IRA - at least in terms of its objectives if not necessarily the way it went about it.

There are between 1-2m Syrian refugees in Turkey- is there any reason Europe should not share the burden of our near neighbours given some of us are bombing their country to pieces?

The ideals of the european union are in many ways ones of solidarity, supporting the weak and poor amongst us to reduce the risk of conflict. I feel it is something worth supporting and continuing.

 

[Robertj21a]

It is always dangerous to stereotype nationalities. In my working life I have had the pleasure to work with people from a wide range of countries including those from Bulgaria and Romania and found them to be hard working and have good English. One of most impressive people I have met was a female Afghan refugee.

The same issues were raised in the past with large scale Irish migration into the UK. Different religion, supposedly loyal to a foreign power (in this case the Vatican), and if you had done opinion polls in the 1970s you probably would have found large scale support for the IRA - at least in terms of its objectives if not necessarily the way it went about it.

There are between 1-2m Syrian refugees in Turkey- is there any reason Europe should not share the burden of our near neighbours given some of us are bombing their country to pieces?

The ideals of the european union are in many ways ones of solidarity, supporting the weak and poor amongst us to reduce the risk of conflict. I feel it is something worth supporting and continuing.

It's always possible to find any number of good examples that do not fit in with the majority. My 'grouping' was simply my personal perception of those countries, and it still feels broadly accurate.

I would expect most of us would agree with the ideas of solidarity, and supporting the weak, but that doesn't need us to move towards a federal Europe, or support some countries that are habitually too 'lazy' to help themselves.

 

[fowler9]

Countries being "habitually" too lazy to help themselves. My that is a generalisation. Are there any you would like to name, perhaps any areas of the UK that fit the same bill?

 

[NY Yankee]

Apparently, this influential British politician, Priti Patel, wants the UK to leave the European Union:

Rising Cabinet star Priti Patel is set to demand a meeting with David Cameron to tell him she will fight tooth and nail against his bid to keep Britain in the EU.

The move by Ms Patel, the telegenic Employment Minister, is expected in the next few days and is set to make her the poster girl of the 'Out' campaign.

It will come as a welcome boost for the 'Leave' movement following splits and feuds between rival groups and claims that its leaders are all 'pale, male and stale'.

Ms Patel, 43, is the daughter of Indian Gujaratis who fled to Britain from Uganda in the 1970s to escape dictator Idi Amin. They set up a chain of newsagents in the South of England – and their work ethic inspired her future political views.

Goldsmith's Referendum Party, a forerunner of Ukip, in the 1997 Election.

In 2010 she became Tory MP for Witham in Essex, the heartland of white, working-class England, winning over the local party with her outspoken support for the return of the death penalty for murderers and rapists

Her stance – decidedly unfashionable for a trendy Cameron 'A' lister – led to a TV clash with Have I Got News For You panellist Ian Hislop. Ms Patel told him: 'I support capital punishment as a deterrent. Far too many politicians do run away from debating issues like this.'

She also opposed gay marriage, a reflection of her small 'c' conservative family background.

Her views have led some to call her a 'modern-day Norman Tebbit' – and it is no coincidence that she is deputy to Work and Pensions Secretary and fellow Right-winger Iain Duncan Smith, Tebbit's successor as MP for Chingford in Essex.

Ms Patel's energy and enthusiasm was quickly talent-spotted by Chancellor George Osborne, who ensured she was fast-tracked to the Cabinet.

Priti – who has a seven-year-old son, Freddie, by husband Alex Sawyer – has no-nonsense Thatcherite views on welfare, low taxes and immigration.


She says Tory core values of family, faith, hard work, education, community service, self-reliance and business mirror those of traditional Asian families.

'My parents persevered and prospered through sheer determination and a profound work ethic.

'Coming from a country where you're persecuted means that you want to work hard.

'You become patriotic because you make your new country your home and you live and play by its values.'

'Priti' impressive compared to the ugly 'Out' campaign so far.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435530/The-poster-girl-campaign-rising-cabinet-star-fight-tooth-nail-against-Cameron-bid-Britain-leave-EU.html?ito=social-facebook

I halfway agree with her. I agree with her belief that a person who emigrates to a country should adhere to its values. I also believe in hard work and not accepting government handouts (unless you really need them). However, she's a little too far to the right. I'm straight, but I respect the right of gay people to get married (I don't want to get off on a tangent). I'm also anti-death penalty, except in extremely rare circumstances (a man kills a child or a pregnant woman). Nevertheless, I agree with the gist of her statement which is that the UK should leave the EU unless the EU changes their stance on immigration.

 

[Moodster020]

All the whys & whatfors about the EU aside, Whilst doing some digging about the EU, i was suprised to hear of these things? >



https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=n...&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=bcq3VpXSOKXhywPS9pOADQ



https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=dcq3VpStN4fjywOK2a3IDA

 

[Mojo]

Yours is the best argument I've seen against EU freedom of movement, in that it discriminates against people outside the EU. Ideally there would be no such thing as countries, but the next best thing is the EU. However, what you suggest effectively imprisons unskilled British people in the UK.

In general terms, EU membership is not a prerequisite to benefit from freedom of movement.

Nonetheless, how many British people, skilled or unskilled, can speak any other language(s) over than English and can actually truly benefit? I certainly wouldn't dream of moving to any other EU countries, except Ireland, because I can only speak English!

 

[radamfi]

In general terms, EU membership is not a prerequisite to benefit from freedom of movement.

Nonetheless, how many British people, skilled or unskilled, can speak any other language(s) over than English and can actually truly benefit? I certainly wouldn't dream of moving to any other EU countries, except Ireland, because I can only speak English!

There is certainly the hope that in the event of the UK leaving the EU, bilateral agreements would subsequently be drawn up to maintain freedom of movement.

It is possible to get a job without speaking the local language, especially in the areas of Europe where English is well spoken, for example the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Either as an unskilled labourer or cleaner, or at an international company where there are a lot of people from different countries so that English is used as the company's main language. I know someone who worked in Rotterdam doing software, someone currently in Amsterdam working for TomTom and someone else who worked at an investment bank in Amsterdam. These people only used English at work.

An alternative is to start your own business, such as David Hembrow from www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com. He left a highly paid job in Cambridge to live in Assen where he conducts "cycle study tours" where he shows people across the world cycle infrastructure in that part of the Netherlands. He also sells Dutch cycle components worldwide.

Of course, it is possible to learn a foreign language even if you are an adult. I have taken a year off work to learn Dutch full time. The "Irish Polyglot" is a well known language expert and knows many languages, yet he left school only knowing English.

If you are retiring then of course you can get away with minimal or no foreign language knowledge, although it is naturally better if you make an effort.

 

[DarloRich]

Its black and white to me - by pulling out of the EU we get control of our borders back, get to say who comes in and who we can deport, and makes our parliament sovereign.

you, and others, don't even understand what that means! That is based on the poor level of commentary we receive in this country. Without research that view is common. Our parliament remains "sovereign", it always has been! The fact that it voted to join the EU and we retain the ability to pass a law leaving the EU should show that!

We already have greater control of our borders than other countries, and can deport whomever we like, in line with the Human Rights Act and all manner of other international treaty obligations beyond the EU.

BTW That would be an act enacted by our "sovereign" government who weren't told or ordered or instructed or forced into enacting this piece of legislation by the EU or anyone else.

29 nations....One government..One money...No borders..........Count me out..

Simply not true - an example of the lack of quality debate and information on this subject.

This is the elephant in the room. What does a 'no' vote mean? Does it mean negotiating a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland has - having to obey most of the rules while having little say in their making, but remaining part of the single market and retaining freedom of movement while not contributing much to budgets, etc? (This used to be the position of the anti-Europeans)
Or does it mean opting out of Europe altogether, and becoming something more like Turkey or Ukraine?
Why has the 'no' camp not put together a clear plan? (Well, obviously because they could never agree on one)

Agreed - lets be clear what voting no means. The problem is the no camp covers everything from agreeing a better deal to bricking up the channel tunnel while the yes camp varies from agreeing a better deal with the EU to full integration!

Personally I am open minded about my choice but want clarity and impartial information on which to make a decision. I am keen for us to try to agree a new deal with the EU but remain within the tent urinating out rather than without the tent trying to urinate in!

I wonder what would have happened if we had got our priorities straight, and concentrated on rebuilding the physical infrastructure - transport and industry - after 1945, and only when that was established spend vastly unaffordable sums of money on a welfare state

yes: God forbid we should try to do away with poverty, want, squalor, illness, lack of education etc. Terrible. :roll:

In my experience you can group the Poles in with the Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia etc) as they all speak good English and seem to want to integrate and co-operate with the Brits, and their way of life.

Personally, I would also group together (though they would hate it !) the Czechs, Slovaks, Roumanians and Bulgarians - seemingly not quite so good at the English language, nor quite the same work ethic and probably less interested in integration.

For me, that also raises the issue of migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. It's only my personal view but I seriously doubt that sufficient of them will contribute much to the good of Britain as a whole. They start from a totally different perspective of what makes up our British culture, customs, and general way of life. It's not a racist view (I would expect the same problems if I was to try living in any of their countries) but it is, in my view, a fair and honest assessment.

A lot may well depend on what happens with migration - and with Turkey - in the coming weeks but if the EU wants to meddle with lots of other countries, and then wants to demand compliance for migration quotas, settlements etc from all member states, then I feel it's time I voted for Brexit.

Yes: Cant beat a good bit of racial stereotyping can you? :roll:

How does such an argument help with deciding if we leave the EU? Surely we need detailed statistics on workers and benefit claimants by ethnic group to determine who contributes or takes the most from society? What if those statistics show the hateful Bulgarians or Afghans contribute more than the rest?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I personally think it's bias and unfair to favour EU workers over non EU workers.

And we favour UK workers over EU workers, who have some- but not all- of the rights UK nationals do.

I agree that the forthcoming changes to work permit laws in the UK, essentially booting out anyone who doesn't earn £35,000pa, are disgraceful. But that's a UK law enacted by the UK government. I don't see what the EU has to do with it at all.

Those who argue that the world's 6th largest economy cannot cope outside the EU is beyond help, we need to be able to make free trade deals on our own. We do not need a faceless technocrat in Brussels to do this for us.

If we are no longer in the EU, will we remain the world's 6th largest economy?

HMRC data shows that just under half of our export trade (it varies by month between 40% and 50%) is done with EU countries. But even with that the UK is a net importer. https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/EU_and_Non-EU_Data.aspx.

Around 16% of EU exports are to the UK, but, more importantly, there are only two EU countries where the UK accounts for more than 10% of their export trade. http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.Vrh1cvmLTcs

My gut instinct is that people who think that our export trade will carry on without any change are naive. I do not see why the EU would continue to allow us the benefits of EU membership- free trade, free movement, etc- without us contributing towards the group that gives us those benefits. Put simply, people don't tend to give you the milk for free without you buying the cow.

In terms of trade, my view remains that the EU is more important to us than we are to it. I'm sure we would be able to negotiate trade agreements with the EU, just as other countries have, but I'm equally sure that there will be a premium to be paid for those agreements.

My big concern is that the no to EU campaigners do not appear to be even starting to formulate ideas about what will happen to our businesses should they win. They just seem to be focusing on those pesky foreigners and "red tape". The fact that the only person talking about trade is the economically illiterate Dan Hannan- a person so opposed to the EU he's spent the last ten years enthusiastically milking the EU parliament expenses system- is deeply concerning.

 

[radamfi]

I agree that the forthcoming changes to work permit laws in the UK, essentially booting out anyone who doesn't earn £35,000pa, are disgraceful. But that's a UK law enacted by the UK government. I don't see what the EU has to do with it at all.

The argument is that because the UK is letting in so many people from the EU, in order to keep down total immigration levels, people from outside the EU have more restrictions than they would otherwise have had. Certainly, the UK government past and present, of all colours, want and need immigration regardless what rhetoric comes from them to appease the voters. Immigration eases the economic problems caused by an ageing population.

 

[Senex]

My gut instinct is that people who think that our export trade will carry on without any change are naive. I do not see why the EU would continue to allow us the benefits of EU membership- free trade, free movement, etc- without us contributing towards the group that gives us those benefits. Put simply, people don't tend to give you the milk for free without you buying the cow.

In terms of trade, my view remains that the EU is more important to us than we are to it. I'm sure we would be able to negotiate trade agreements with the EU, just as other countries have, but I'm equally sure that there will be a premium to be paid for those agreements.

My big concern is that the no to EU campaigners do not appear to be even starting to formulate ideas about what will happen to our businesses should they win. They just seem to be focusing on those pesky foreigners and "red tape". The fact that the only person talking about trade is the economically illiterate Dan Hannan- a person so opposed to the EU he's spent the last ten years enthusiastically milking the EU parliament expenses system- is deeply concerning.

My gut instinct is just the same. Why should a club that we've chosen to leave continue to give us all the benefits of membership?

My problem is to see just what the benefits of membership for the ordinary citizen have been over the last forty years. Our governments have consistently sat on the sidelines making a great deal of noise about how different we are rather than getting stuck in and involved as real insiders, and the Stay campaign as being argued so far seems to be entirely based on Cameron's great success in getting the "differences" taken account of. It's a deeply unimpressive campaign -- I really hope it's going to wake up.

I voted "Yes" forty years ago in the hope that a genuine community of peoples with a common history, a common culture, and common interests would develop. It hasn't. I suppose I'll reluctantly vote to stay this time, certainly with no enthusiasm for the EU as it has developed or for what it has brought for me as an individual British (reluctantly -- I want to be English) citizen.

 

[tony_mac]

My gut instinct is that people who think that our export trade will carry on without any change are naive. I do not see why the EU would continue to allow us the benefits of EU membership- free trade, free movement, etc- without us contributing towards the group that gives us those benefits.

Because it is mutually beneficial. As it is with Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland.
However, they are all part of Schengen - but that's been looking rather less relevant over the last 6 months.

 

[Robertj21a]

Yes: Cant beat a good bit of racial stereotyping can you? :roll:

How does such an argument help with deciding if we leave the EU? Surely we need detailed statistics on workers and benefit claimants by ethnic group to determine who contributes or takes the most from society? What if those statistics show the hateful Bulgarians or Afghans contribute more than the rest?

It wasn't radical stereotyping to be consumed by all and sundry, it was - as I made clear - my personal view of how I can easily group certain nations together. You, and others, are perfectly free to ignore it, rubbish it, or come up with alternatives. That's the beauty of free speech.

It helped me to better consider the various nations affected. Sorry if that causes you some sort of problem.

 

[DarloRich]

It wasn't radical stereotyping to be consumed by all and sundry, it was - as I made clear - my personal view of how I can easily group certain nations together. You, and others, are perfectly free to ignore it, rubbish it, or come up with alternatives. That's the beauty of free speech.

It helped me to better consider the various nations affected. Sorry if that causes you some sort of problem.

No problem - i just don't understand how that helps the debate on leaving the EU.

Surely you want evidence to support or validate your thoughts, otherwise you are deciding something important on gut feelings or anecdotal evidence, which may, or may not, be wrong.

 

[Trog]

I was really un-impressed with David Cameron's argument as reported on the radio that it would be a good idea to stay in the EU, because if we left the French would let all the migrants travel to Britain so they would camp here instead of Calais. It may be true, but stay in or the French will be nasty to us, really sounds like giving in to blackmail / bullying.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The UK is a world superpower,[/B] yet it has no control over its immigration policies. Everyone should be free to enter the UK, provided they become productive people who conform to the culture of the country. It's unfair to be forced to blindly accept migrants.

No its not and indeed we haven't been since the end of WW1 in my opinion. There is only one world super power and that is the US although Russia is asserting a lot more influence nowadays.

 

[NY Yankee]

It's that time of the year when Scotland b!tches about secession:

Poll finds majority support for independence if UK exits EU

A majority of Scots would back independence if the UK votes to leave the European Union (EU), a new poll has found.

The Ipsos MORI for STV News poll suggests Brexit would increase support for a Yes vote in the event of a second independence referendum.

It found Scots are strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, with 62% stating they would vote to remain, 26% who would vote to leave and 12% who are not sure.

A vote for Britain to leave the EU against the wishes of the majority of Scots is seen as a possible trigger for a second independence ballot.

The poll, conducted between February 1 and 7, suggests that if this were to happen, then opinion would be more in favour of Scotland becoming independent than it is now.

Asked how they would vote if there was another independence referendum tomorrow, 49% of the poll's 1,000 respondents would vote yes, 45% would vote no and 5% did not know. This becomes 52% for yes and 48% for no when "don't knows" are excluded.

More than half (54%) said they would vote yes in a second independence referendum if Britain voted to leave the EU when voters in Scotland voted to remain, compared to 39% who would vote no and 7% who were unsure. This becomes 58% for yes and 42% for no when "don't knows" are excluded.

Meanwhile, the SNP remains on course for victory in May's Scottish elections.

Among those likely to vote, 53% would cast their constituency vote for the SNP while 20% would vote for Scottish Labour. Support for the Scottish Conservatives stands at 16% with the Scottish Liberal Democrats on 6%.

Just under half (49%) said they would cast their regional vote for the SNP while Labour remain on 19%. The Scottish Conservatives stand at 15% while the Scottish Liberal Democrats are on 8% and the Scottish Greens on 6%.

Mark Diffley, director at Ipsos MORI Scotland, said: "Our latest STV poll confirms the strong position of the SNP.

"By this time in the run-up to the 2011 Holyrood election, we saw signs of shift in support from Labour to the SNP; there are no signs of a shift back in that support this time.

"The most striking finding from the poll is the potential support for independence in the event of a second referendum being called if Britain exits the EU against the will of the majority of voters in Scotland."

A Scottish Labour spokesman said: "We will go into this election with a bold plan to give everybody in Scotland a fair chance in life, so we can grow our economy and invest in the future.

"We are in no doubt about the scale of challenge but we are confident in our vision for Scotland."

SNP business convener Derek Mackay said: "This is another very welcome poll showing people in Scotland are continuing to back the SNP's record in government and our positive, ambitious vision for Scotland's future - in contrast to a chaotic Labour Party which isn't even regarded as a credible party of opposition, never mind a credible party of government."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/po...port-for-independence-if-uk-exits-eu-1.923704

So basically, Scotland is blackmailing the UK into staying in the EU. Every time the Scottish people don't have their way, they throw temper tantrums and whine about wanting to secede. The UK contributes more to Scotland than vice versa. I don't even consider Scots to be real Brits.

The Scots believe that being a part of the EU will facilitate the exchange of goods and services between their tiny, pathetic region and the other European Union members. They also believe that if the UK leaves the European Union then they'll have less control over international relations and foreign and security policies since they will be under the control of the UK as opposed to the entire European Union.

Scotland, if you want to leave the UK, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Trog]

I would have thought it would only be worth Scotland separating from the rest of the UK on exit from the EU if leaving the EU caused difficult trade barriers between the UK and the EU. Because if things carry on more or less as is trade wise as the EU allow our stuff in so we still buy there's, there is no point Scotland separating.

However if separation causes big problems with trade would Scotland want the boarder where that dislocation happens to be right on their door step where it would affect their trade with the rest of the UK and for most of their trade with the rest of the EU to have to cross that boarder twice.

 

[Butts]

It's that time of the year when Scotland b!tches about secession:

Poll finds majority support for independence if UK exits EU



http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/po...port-for-independence-if-uk-exits-eu-1.923704

So basically, Scotland is blackmailing the UK into staying in the EU. Every time the Scottish people don't have their way, they throw temper tantrums and whine about wanting to secede. The UK contributes more to Scotland than vice versa. I don't even consider Scots to be real Brits.

The Scots believe that being a part of the EU will facilitate the exchange of goods and services between their tiny, pathetic region and the other European Union members. They also believe that if the UK leaves the European Union then they'll have less control over international relations and foreign and security policies since they will be under the control of the UK as opposed to the entire European Union.

Scotland, if you want to leave the UK, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I must say there is a lot of hot air bandied about on this site but this just about tops the pile......

Utter garbage

 

[cjmillsnun]

Because it is mutually beneficial. As it is with Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland.
However, they are all part of Schengen - but that's been looking rather less relevant over the last 6 months.

Switzerland, Norway and Iceland implement EU directives to be able to trade freely with the EU but have no say on those directives. For that reason I'd rather be in. At least our Government and our elected representatives in the EU can debate and vote on said directives or get compromises suitable for UK needs. Being in the same situation as those three countries is not an option to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's that time of the year when Scotland b!tches about secession:

Poll finds majority support for independence if UK exits EU



http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/po...port-for-independence-if-uk-exits-eu-1.923704

So basically, Scotland is blackmailing the UK into staying in the EU. Every time the Scottish people don't have their way, they throw temper tantrums and whine about wanting to secede. The UK contributes more to Scotland than vice versa. I don't even consider Scots to be real Brits.

The Scots believe that being a part of the EU will facilitate the exchange of goods and services between their tiny, pathetic region and the other European Union members. They also believe that if the UK leaves the European Union then they'll have less control over international relations and foreign and security policies since they will be under the control of the UK as opposed to the entire European Union.

Scotland, if you want to leave the UK, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Sorry but good for them. They were royally screwed with the compromises over further devolution following the indyref despite the result being close. The last GE was also a point being made by Scots not to ignore them. I'm English but feel things would be better without Westminster. At least the Scots (and to a lesser extent the Welsh) are trying to do some form of localism

Scots at the moment contribute a lot more to government funds than they did years ago.

 

[Altfish]

I think the way to judge this is to see which way the Murdoch newspapers and the Daily Mail recommend and vote the opposite

 

[richa2002]

What I find hilarious is if Scotland wanted to be independent so as to be member of the EU. Just think about it!

 

[cb a1]

What I find hilarious is if Scotland wanted to be independent so as to be member of the EU. Just think about it!

I want Scotland to be independent and a member of the EU (and a member of NATO and a member of the UN and a member of some 'special relationship with the remainder of the UK' if they would like to have that).

A lot of people seem to be confused about what independent means. It is not tautologous with isolated.