Referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union.

[cantaloup63]

the majority of our trade takes place with non EU countries.

Where did you get that from?

My apologies - I was using data from a while ago . According to the ukinfo.com website which publishes official figures:

EU Trade:
The total 2011 year to date value of UK’s trade-in-goods exported excluding August 2011 was £92.5 billion, which has been downwardly revised by £224.4 million.
The total 2011 year to date value of UK’s trade-in-goods imported excluding August 2011 was £116.7 billion, which has been downwardly revised by £131.8 million.
Non EU Trade:
The total 2011 year to date value of UK’s trade-in-goods exported excluding August 2011 was £77.4 billion, which has been upwardly revised by £32.7 million.

The total 2011 year to date value of UK’s trade-in-goods imported excluding August 2011 was £111.2 billion, which has been downwardly revised by £140.5 million.

Without taking the revisions into account, this means that we export 46% to, and import 49% of our goods from non-EU countries. Whether you consider that to be significantly different enough amount is up to you - personally I stand by the view that the EU needs our trades as much as we need theirs. One could also cite cases (such as agricultural policies and monopoly decisions, as well as fees paid into the EU coffers for subsidizing purposes) which may well tip the balance of payments in our favour should we withdraw.

I suspect that there may not be a huge fiscal difference whether we are in or out, but I would rather be governed by people I elect (notwithstanding the obvious flaws in our current setup). I would also prefer it if some countries don't flaunt the rules which they signed up to.

All in all, for me, the line of best fit is...OUT

 

[enyam]

I personally stand by the view that the EU needs our trades as much as we need theirs.

They also need our open border policy to deal with the eastern Europeans.

 

[sooey]

I do agree with that sooey but the trouble is if you ask the 'average person' they really have no idea what the pros and cons are......so they would be basing their decision on snippets of info.
You really can't say 'yes' or 'no' in an educated way unless you have considered all the options and weighed it all up.

The usual proceedure would be to have a period of campaigning before an important vote, in order for all sides to put their points across and the reasons why the vote should go their way.
The reason this isn't happening is because the "yes" side fully realise that the "no" side would win the day because the disadvantages are percieved to far outweigh the advantages.
Normally the government of the day would expect to win a referendum because of the clout they can put on the campaign trail.
Our government knows differently in this case or we would have had one before now.
We were dragged in on a lie, and we are kept in on a refusal to apply a democratic vote to the issue.

F*&*in ba&£^"*s

 

[enyam]

The usual proceedure would be to have a period of campaigning before an important vote, in order for all sides to put their points across and the reasons why the vote should go their way.
The reason this isn't happening is because the "yes" side fully realise that the "no" side would win the day because the disadvantages are percieved to far outweigh the advantages.

But there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort from any political party to argue the case against Europe.Dave,Cleggy and Mr Ed (he really is like the talking horse) are so pro European any kind of vote on any aspect of Europe will not happen before hell freezes over.

 

[Norcon]

Maybe the two options offered for votes do not encompass all the opinions held.

Now , now JohnD, what you really mean is , the two options offered do not encompass, "Your Opinion"

Don't be silly.

It does not encompass my opinion, there are only two options offered, therefore it clearly does not encompass all opinions.

I 'm afraid I can't back up my statement about Espana earlier as I plucked the figures out of thin air

I'm sorry to hear you base your position on made-up-lies

Waste of time discussing anything with you then.

I'd put my trust in JJ's figures before I'd trust a corrupt cartel like the eu who spew out official documents and propaganda which never publish the whole story.
Take Ireland who have recieved 67 billion in financial aid since ascension and lost 100 billions worth of fish revenue. (Source - Sinn Fein)
The bottom line is Ireland would be a wealthier nation today without european intervention.

The greatest problem since the beginning is greedy politicians who lie to get into power and then who cannot see further than their short term in office to garner as much wealth as possible to feather their own nests whilst simontaneously ignoring any wishes the populations they represent might want.
Thats not democracy. Its a dictatorship and it will never work.

 

[Brigadier]

p.s.

I don't know how the Human Rights Act was implemented into UK law, but EU law doesn't have to be transcribed word for word into each sovereign state's statutes

The Human Rights Act did not come from the EU, and is not an EU law.[/quote]

You're right - The HRA 1998 (date is important!) was the UK's interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I don't know if our interpretation is different to France's, or Germany's. But it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility - my line of work is directly involved with the (former) UK government's (proven incorrect) interpretation of an EU directive. So sovereign implementation can differ across member states.

1998 was the date of the Act but importantly, the "date of implementation" was October 2000. You might need a conspiracy theorist's bent for this one, but in April 2000, a C. Booth QC set up a law firm specialising in human rights law. She did very well out of it, too. Could a mere QC have any sway in how UK law was to be worded?

 

[Brigadier]

"The greatest problem since the beginning is greedy politicians who lie to get into power and then who cannot see further than their short term in office to garner as much wealth as possible to feather their own nests whilst simontaneously ignoring any wishes the populations they represent might want.
Thats not democracy. Its a dictatorship and it will never work."

Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/genera...ean-union.296463/page-4#2161536#ixzz1buhmvz00

While there is probably much truth in the above, there is also the "truth" that so many unpalatable alliances have been made, so many lies told, that the "common man" would throw their arms up, perhaps riot, and may never vote again. I believe it's called Realpolitik. Like the US having relations with China, when they supposedly disavow communism. Would the West treat Saudi Arabia the same if it wasn't for it's oil reserves?
Realpolitik may be summed up as - you can get all moral and get nowhere, or get on with it. Which is why being in opposition is easy - talk as much as you like - you don't have to follow it through.

 

[Paul_C]

The Human Rights Act did not come from the EU, and is not an EU law.

I think sometimes it's confused with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which does originate from the EU, and which we should never have agreed to. It might look all well and good when you start reading the first few articles (although it does then get to a whole section which sounds like it was transcribed almost directly from Marxist policy), but all of the so-called rights that it sets out are then dismissed in article 52 by wording which says that the EU can ignore them for pursuing objectives which are in "the general interest of the Union," or words to that effect. So the EU is saying that it doesn't really recognize them as absolute rights at all.

Without taking the revisions into account, this means that we export 46% to, and import 49% of our goods from non-EU countries.

I have no idea whether the figures being quoted here are among those affected or not, but a few years ago it was revealed that some of the government's statistics regarding imports from other EU countries were being completely skewed by deceptively including some goods which originated from outside the EU but which passed through some other EU port on the way to Britain. For example, something in a container shipment from Japan could be counted as an import from the EU if it stopped off in Rotterdam before being loaded onto another ship to come over to Felixstowe.

On the this general issue, however, the idea that we would suddenly lose all that trade with the EU seems to be one of the main arguments from the pro-EU side against withdrawal. It doesn't stack up though: Does anyone really think that all of that trade (both imports and exports) would suddenly vanish by our withdrawal? We traded with the rest of Europe before we joined the EEC in 1973, and we would continue to do so outside of the EU. Perhaps there would be import tariffs on British goods, but we dealt with that 40 years ago. And although the removal of such tariffs on intra-EU trade is one of the advantages touted widely, it should not be forgotten that it has come with a complementary disadvantage of preventing us from trading with the rest of the world on our own terms. Britain is now prevented from coming to a mutually beneficial trade agreement with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, or anywhere else outside the EU because of the EU's common import tariffs which all EU members are required to apply.

The EU makes a big show about how all the thousands of rules and regulations it churns out every year are necessary to facilitate the "free market." The reality is that the EU does not wish to create free, open trade, but just the opposite - A highly regulated and controlled market. And, of course, that also extends even to the case of goods manufactured in the U.K. (there are still a few) and sold and used wholly within the U.K., but which are still subject to all those thousands of EU directives.

 

[kevindgas]

€ is as said ctrl/alt/4 on windows 7