Should We Leave the EU?

[anme]

Yet as you say, "Power works best when held at the most appropriate level", and that's where the classic mould of the EU authorities have failed, with everything so centralised. Yet a good few of the large European nations, like France and Spain, have moved quite strongly in the direction of the effective regional authorities that Germany, as a result of its history, has had since the second world war.

Which powers would you like to see devolved from EU level?

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Yet a good few of the large European nations, like France and Spain, have moved quite strongly in the direction of the effective regional authorities that Germany, as a result of its history, has had since the second world war.

Do you mean the end of hostilities or since 1991 when the war ended?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It was EU law that forced the government to implement DDA

No it wasn't. The DDA was implemented in 1995 as a result of domestic campaigning to extend to disabled people the rights and protections granted by the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination acts. The EU modelled its 2000 Directive on the DDA.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a rant about how your beloved knackered old buses Pacers are being turned into bean cans because of "faceless EU bureaucrats".

 

[anme]

No it wasn't. The DDA was implemented in 1995 as a result of domestic campaigning to extend to disabled people the rights and protections granted by the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination acts. The EU modelled its 2000 Directive on the DDA.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a rant about how your beloved knackered old buses Pacers are being turned into bean cans because of "faceless EU bureaucrats".

This is a big problem with the 'no' campaigners. A huge proportion of the complaints they have about the EU are simply not true, and most could be debunked by a couple of minutes on Google. You simply cannot believe anything these people say.

This is not to argue that the EU is perfect, but you will not hear about the actual problems from UKIP et al.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

One final point and I will make clear from the start that I am no fan of Jeremy Corbyn, his comments so far have been very poor I'm my view, all he keeps saying that its an internal dispute of the Tory party, well yes it may have been bourne out of that and Tory attempts to fight off UKIP, but the vote is now here so stop going on about it and give the Labour party position.

I think that you'll find - if you look - that Jeremy Corbyn has said far more than that - it just hasn't been reported in the media! ....and why would it? The media only like reporting Labour splits.

 

[radamfi]

This is a big problem with the 'no' campaigners. A huge proportion of the complaints they have about the EU are simply not true, and most could be debunked by a couple of minutes on Google. You simply cannot believe anything these people say.

This is not to argue that the EU is perfect, but you will not hear about the actual problems from UKIP et al.

I have already heard at least two blatant lies on TV in two days. First of all IDS talking about the "open borders" and today UKIP was talking about the Lille Loophole.

 

[richa2002]

Of course there are open borders to all EU nationals. Crikey, that's a basic. IDS rightly stated that those migrating to EU countries now could well be given EU passports in a matter of years and be able to take advantage of those open borders.

 

[Dave1987]

I have already heard at least two blatant lies on TV in two days. First of all IDS talking about the "open borders" and today UKIP was talking about the Lille Loophole.

You comments demonstrate exactly what is so so annoying for people like me. One side of the argument says something and the other side accuses them of blatant lies and scaremongering. So those of us in the middle have no clue who is telling the truth.

Why ow why ow why can't we have a reasoned debate where the facts are laid out on both sides so we can make an informed decision. This referendum is already turning nasty and we are only two days since it was announced!

It's one of the biggest decisions some of us have made since we were born deciding which way to vote in this referendum and is not something to take lightly.

 

[radamfi]

Of course there are open borders to all EU nationals. Crikey, that's a basic. IDS rightly stated that those migrating to EU countries now could well be given EU passports in a matter of years and be able to take advantage of those open borders.

"Open border" means that you can walk across the border without a passport check. There is an open border between Belgium and France but not between France and the UK.

 

[47802]

I think that you'll find - if you look - that Jeremy Corbyn has said far more than that - it just hasn't been reported in the media! ....and why would it? The media only like reporting Labour splits.

Yes he did say more that that, but his main point was banging about the division on the Tories on this, rather pointless since we now have a vote.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You comments demonstrate exactly what is so so annoying for people like me. One side of the argument says something and the other side accuses them of blatant lies and scaremongering. So those of us in the middle have no clue who is telling the truth.

You need to do your own research.

The Lille Loophole is a verifiable lie.

The "open borders" thing is more about opinion than objective fact. I consider it scaremongering, but other opinions are available. I would say that it is worth mentioning that every terrorist attack on British soil has been committed by British (*I'm including the IRA, as they are/were British, just don't want to be) people.

You do make a very important point about the standard of debate so far about what is such a crucial decision. My opinion is there's much more disingenuity from the "leave" camp- especially their repeated conflation of the EU and the ECHR- but the stay camp's main argument has been "better the devil you know".

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

his main point was banging about the division on the Tories on this, rather pointless since we now have a vote.

It's interesting, isn't it, how the Tories having different opinions about the EU is acceptable but Labour having different opinions about Trident shows "a lack of leadership".

It's been interesting watching Laura Kuenssberg's reporting these last few weeks. If I didn't know better, I'd say she was still upset that daddy's meddling in a Labour leadership election backfired...

 

[Dave1987]

You need to do your own research.

The Lille Loophole is a verifiable lie.

The "open borders" thing is more about opinion than objective fact. I consider it scaremongering, but other opinions are available. I would say that it is worth mentioning that every terrorist attack on British soil has been committed by British (*I'm including the IRA, as they are/were British, just don't want to be) people.

Indeed and I have been reading the Beeb & Sky News websites trying to find out info from both sides of the argument. But for every single point that one side of the argument makes the other side comes down hell for leather claiming blatant lies etc. It seems to me that there aren't many known things on either side. I don't believe life will be as rosy as the Out campaign would have you believe but on the other hand I don't believe it will be as bad as the In campaign say it would be. And I hate the way the ECHR made us pay benefits and give housing to people like Abu Hamza who hated this country.

It's interesting, isn't it, how the Tories having different opinions about the EU is acceptable but Labour having different opinions about Trident shows "a lack of leadership".

It's been interesting watching Laura Kuenssberg's reporting these last few weeks. If I didn't know better, I'd say she was still upset that daddy's meddling in a Labour leadership election backfired...

What makes me laugh about Kuenssberg is the way she went to ITV and then was very quickly back at the Beeb.

I don't think the Tories differing opinion on the EU has been classed as "acceptable" in fact its proved quite embarrassing for Cameron that a lot of his cabinet have come out for the Out campaign and high profile MP's like Boris Johnson have as well.

 

[tony_mac]

There is a right for people to move to another EU country to look for work.
If they are actively looking for work, and likely to find a job, then they are allowed to stay.
If they aren't, then they probably won't be removed - but that's down to the UK, not the EU.

A criminal conviction could result in being refused entry. But, it's not a blanket ban. It's largely unenforced, but again, that's down to the UK. (and e.g., banning somone for parking offences wouldn't be reasonable).

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/citizenship/docs/guide_free_movement_low.pdf

The Lille 'loophole' had nothing to do with the EU - that was a Schengen / UK borders problem; exactly the same issue would have arisen if UK was outside the EU.

And I hate the way the ECHR made us pay benefits and give housing to people like Abu Hamza who hated this country.

Nothing to do with the EU - the UK signed the treaty in 1951; it's rulings are not even binding on UK courts.

Leveson told an audience at the Hay festival that UK judges were not bound by the decisions of the European court of human rights (ECHR), and instead were only obliged to take the Strasbourg court’s rulings “into consideration”.

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/CP_United_Kingdom_ENG.pdf

 

[radamfi]

And I hate the way the ECHR made us pay benefits and give housing to people like Abu Hamza who hated this country.

ECHR is separate to the EU and the referendum does not affect the UK's involvement in it. It covers several countries that aren't in the EU.

 

[anme]

ECHR is separate to the EU and the referendum does not affect the UK's involvement in it. It covers several countries that aren't in the EU.

The ECHR also did not require the UK to provide housing and benefits to Abu Hamza. That's another verifiable lie.

 

[Tetchytyke]

And I hate the way the ECHR made us pay benefits and give housing to people like Abu Hamza who hated this country.

As if to prove my point about people confusing the EU and the ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights is an entirely separate organisation to the EU, and always has been. Great Britain was a founding member of the Council of Europe- which oversees the ECHR- in 1949 and the Council of Europe has 47 member states. The referendum is not deciding on whether we should remain a member of the Council of Europe. Any comment on the decisions- good, bad or indifferent- of the ECHR are therefore entirely irrelevant.

As an aside, they didn't "make" us pay anything towards Abu Hamza; not only do the ECHR not have that power, that wasn't what was decided anyway. What was decided was that they couldn't extradite him to a country where he would face the death penalty (which he could have in the US), would be tortured or would be tried using evidence obtained through torture. Once that was sorted out he was deported to the US, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

 

[charley_17/7]

So how exactly are you likely to lose your job as a result of leaving the EU? This sounds like a load of drivel quite honestly.

My employer, who happens to German, made huge losses in the first few years starting up, but went onto to invest in the business further, whilst at the same time turning around profitability, whilst remaining competitive. They could have just walked away.

I don't imagine that they'd leave, but future growth of the business would definitely be at stake.

 

[Dave1987]

As if to prove my point about people confusing the EU and the ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights is an entirely separate organisation to the EU, and always has been. Great Britain was a founding member of the Council of Europe- which oversees the ECHR- in 1949 and the Council of Europe has 47 member states. The referendum is not deciding on whether we should remain a member of the Council of Europe. Any comment on the decisions- good, bad or indifferent- of the ECHR are therefore entirely irrelevant.

As an aside, they didn't "make" us pay anything towards Abu Hamza; not only do the ECHR not have that power, that wasn't what was decided anyway. What was decided was that they couldn't extradite him to a country where he would face the death penalty (which he could have in the US), would be tortured or would be tried using evidence obtained through torture. Once that was sorted out he was deported to the US, where he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

So why did he repeatedly go to the ECHR using UK legal aid money claiming it was in breach of his human rights for the UK not to house and feed his and his family? Even though he hated this country and routinely preached his hate? If the ECHR ruling wasn't legally binding then why did we house and feed him?

When it was all over the news it was said that membership of the ECHR was a condition of being part of the EU.

 

[tony_mac]

If the ECHR ruling wasn't legally binding then why did we house and feed him?

When it was all over the news it was said that membership of the ECHR was a condition of being part of the EU.

Presumably, because we think it's more important to stand by our treaty obligations.
If you want to link to specific ruling(s), that might help answer any questions.

We were members of the ECHR long before the EU / EEC existed.
As to whether it is a condition of EU membership - nobody is actually sure.

Opinions differ as to whether a Member State can withdraw from the European Convention and remain in the EU, given that the EU Treaties specifically refer to the human rights guarantees in the Council of Europe instrument.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06577

 

[anme]

So why did he repeatedly go to the ECHR using UK legal aid money claiming it was in breach of his human rights for the UK not to house and feed his and his family? Even though he hated this country and routinely preached his hate? If the ECHR ruling wasn't legally binding then why did we house and feed him?

I am really tired of people writing this ill informed nonsense. Point to some evidence of this judgement, or withdraw your claim.

When it was all over the news it was said that membership of the ECHR was a condition of being part of the EU.

The UK joined the ECHR long after it joined the EU.

 

[ComUtoR]

The thing about a lie is that it is a deliberate act to deceive; especially when you know its false.

There is a big difference where people will outright lie to prove their point and those who say something without knowledge or understanding. Or even out of date information.

Whilst I do not trust many politicians I find it difficult to state they are categorically lying.

 

[Senex]

Which powers would you like to see devolved from EU level?

Amongst the core competencies, definitely the Common Fisheries Policy, where I think only the litoral states should be involved, and then for themselves alone. Probably also the CAP, which is almost certainly the one which has done British interests less good (more harm?) than any other. Amonsgt the shared competencies, a transport example: the requirement to separate out railway infrastructure accounting from operations accounting, where there seems to be no need for a common European way of doing things -- indeed, this could even sensibly head for regional rather than state level in some instances. I do think there's a strong case for the individual states deciding for themselves which migrants receive benefits and how much, given that some states work a system of entitlement and some a system of contribution. And much though I favoured Schengen and thought out keeping out was an appalling decision, I now feel that we do need the individual states to be able to control their own borders, given the total failure of the common border system. (And as for some states thinking we should allow into the EU huge numbers of migrants and then wanting to force quotas on all the rest of us, I think that is definitely a state, not an EU, affair.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you mean the end of hostilities or since 1991 when the war ended?

I mean the cessation of hostilities, as I think you probably guessed. Some throty odd years ago I had occasion to look in some detail at the precise status of Berlin (and of the railway operations in the city). As you can imagine, that taught me quite a lot about the legal status of various things that had come to pass in 1945 and never been properly settled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course there are open borders to all EU nationals. Crikey, that's a basic. IDS rightly stated that those migrating to EU countries now could well be given EU passports in a matter of years and be able to take advantage of those open borders.

And surely that is why there are now many who think that that open borders situation must at least temporarily be suspended.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The UK joined the ECHR long after it joined the EU.

And I think there are quite a lot of us who very much regret that decision.

 

[anme]

The thing about a lie is that it is a deliberate act to deceive; especially when you know its false.

There is a big difference where people will outright lie to prove their point and those who say something without knowledge or understanding. Or even out of date information.

Whilst I do not trust many politicians I find it difficult to state they are categorically lying.

Exactly.

There are two separate and distinct things that we are hearing:

- Opinions and predictions. Claims from either side about what will happen in the future are predictions, and nothing more. None of us can know what will happen, and we can never know whether the predictions made by the losing side would have come true. The two sides will make predictions to further their own ends, and both will claim we will be richer, happier, etc if we vote their way. You need to decide which side you find more credible. You cannot expect them to agree.

- Factual claims. Statistics such as X% of our trade is with the EU, or EU regulation X says this, etc can be verified, usually quite easily. This is where obvious lies, as peddled already by the no campaign, can easily be called out. It's very important that we do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I think there are quite a lot of us who very much regret that decision.

Why do you regret the decision to join the EHCR? Which rights would you (personally) like to give up?

 

[Oswyntail]

....I don't think the Tories differing opinion on the EU has been classed as "acceptable" in fact its proved quite embarrassing for Cameron that a lot of his cabinet have come out for the Out campaign and high profile MP's like Boris Johnson have as well.

Embarrassing? He knew, we all knew that this would happen. Against expectations (from experts) he explicitly said party members could campaign as they wished. Disagreements honestly expressed are a part of healthy debate, and Cameron, as usual, encouraged this. Far from embarrassing, I would say.

 

[radamfi]

IDS rightly stated that those migrating to EU countries now could well be given EU passports in a matter of years

How will leaving the EU make a difference? We are surely not going to make Germans need a visa to visit the UK in the event of Brexit?

 

[miami]

The "open borders" thing is more about opinion than objective fact. I consider it scaremongering, but other opinions are available. I would say that it is worth mentioning that every terrorist attack on British soil has been committed by British (*I'm including the IRA, as they are/were British, just don't want to be) people.

I'd be very surprised if every IRA attack was committed by people from Ulster or by people born before 1916. James McCormack for example. "Terrorist" attack is open for interpretation too - Pavlo Lapshyn was Ukranian. I don't think Kafeel Ahmed was British either, and of course Pan Am 103 was on UK soil.

I'm unaware of any "terrorist attack" committed on UK soil that was perpetrated by a member of the EU excluding Britain and Ireland. I'm certainly unaware of any Uk terror attack that would have been prevented by leaving the EU -- we'd still have the same passport controls (or are the "leave EU" brigade suggesting we force europeans to apply for visas to visit the UK?)

"Open border" means that you can walk across the border without a passport check. There is an open border between Belgium and France but not between France and the UK.

There's an open border between the UK and Ireland though, and Ireland aren't leaving the EU. Leaving the EU won't change this. Northern Ireland independence would.

You comments demonstrate exactly what is so so annoying for people like me. One side of the argument says something and the other side accuses them of blatant lies and scaremongering. So those of us in the middle have no clue who is telling the truth.

It used to be that you had trusted journalists that told the truth, rather than act as a platform with an even time for a spokesman from the "earth is flat" society in the "is the earth round" debate, because balance.

 

[ExRes]

I'm probably just failing to look in the correct place, so I apologise in advance

Can someone please tell me the date that these 'negotiations' carried out by Cameron will be ratified and signed into EU law

 

[Johnuk123]

I'm probably just failing to look in the correct place, so I apologise in advance

Can someone please tell me the date that these 'negotiations' carried out by Cameron will be ratified and signed into EU law

Significantly at least 2 years after the referendum.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I'm probably just failing to look in the correct place, so I apologise in advance

Can someone please tell me the date that these 'negotiations' carried out by Cameron will be ratified and signed into EU law

Maybe the day after the vote has been made

 

[ExRes]

Maybe the day after the vote has been made

Just what I was wondering but I, obviously, have such belief in the honesty of our politicians I just couldn't bring myself to say such a thing ..........