OUT without a doubt.
Out. we’ll survive.
we never voted IN, we voted for the EEC (free movement of goods and trade) we certainly did NOT vote for the gravy train that is the EU.
OUT
I also voted to stay in the Common Market. I did not vote to be Governed by a Foreign Government Organisation, none of them having been Elected to do the job they do.
Things have deteriorated vastly since those early days. Certainly during the last four Governments that have been in Office in this Country. Life has become a lot more intolerable for the general public in this country.
I shall, I think vote OUT on this occasion None of us know what the outcome of us being out will be, but we survived quite well in the past, it was alright as a Common Market. That was explained to us it would give us a greater market in which to sell our goods, But not this European Union that is now ruling us and telling us what we can produce and what we can’t produce. This system is doing us no good at all. OUT.
OUT, OUT, OUT. Without a shadow of a doubt.
Carryfast:
eddie snax:
I think you are wrong about an EU federal military force, as most EU members are in NATO, and most EU members would rather let the Americans pay for their protection than cough up themselves. The excemptions being Britain and France, though I have My doubts that are political masters are that comitted to are military power, judging by the catastrophic cuts are armed services have suffered in recent yearsThe fact that the EU didn’t at the time and doesn’t even yet have any Federal military command system explains the inconsistency in the example of defence policy still being one of the few,if any,matters still under seperate EU state sovereign control.IE the issue of sovereignty only applies to that lost in the treaties signed,‘so far’.Of which federal military control isn’t there ‘yet’.
While it would be fair to say that the lessons of history suggest that Federal government inevitably means a Federal controlled military whose primary objective is maintaining Federal rule internally ( IE the Union ) against any calls for the right of self determination and secession among the states.With the disarmament and foreign population of Britain possibly being part of that long term agenda.Bearing in mind the combined military strength of France,Germany and Eastern Europe for example assuming we ever ended up in the situation of being considered a secessionist ‘rebel’ state,maybe generations into the future having condemned them to that fate through decisions being made now.
As for NATO yes it could arguably be seen as a back door EU federal force which could back fire badly in the case of either dragging us into a fight between Turkey and Russia and/or Eastern Europe and Russia for example.On that note what connection has Turkey or Eastern Europe have with a so called ‘Atlantic’ geographic area defence alliance.
All of this supposes, that the US would be prepared to say goodbye to NATO, which aint going to happen. The US needs the legitimacy given to it by being the lead Nation in NATO. Its military might is undeniable, spending more on “defence” than the next 10 biggest spenders added together, but the diplomatic clout achieved through the undoubted pressure it can weald over its fellow NATO members, means that the US foreign policy goals can almost allways be achieved, done so through an out would appearance of consensus amongst its NATO allies.
The US wont allow that to wither and die.
This being so, and the fact that a federal European military would require funding at a higher level than that which all EU nations, apart from Britain and France, are currently prepared to commit, or would likely be prepared to commit in the future, suggest that this is one aspiration that will never happen.
To form an EU military force, there would also need to be a void for it to fill, such a void wont exists whilst NATO exists, and as I suggest earlier, the US wont let NATO die, its and kind of quid pro quo, us Europeans give the US legitimacy in its foreign policy aims, and it pays for Europes protection.
It is another reason why the US though not wanting Britain to leave the EU, does want its most reliable ally to be slighty aloof from the main EU pack, as we then dance and squeal the US’s tune to the rather reluctant, but never the less adherent Europeans, and bang, the US wins again 
Question for windrush, if the French pull out their car manufacturers, will they also take their water supplies and also the Dartford bridge which they own. I’m for out and we should not have gone in. in the first place. Our London docks used to be fully busy, but look at them now. Boating lakes.
In the beginning of the EU aka The Common Market with only 6 members it was a good idea, now with 28 member countries it has grown too unwieldy and diverse to be an efficient organisation. If Switzerland with all it’s borders joining an EU member state can survive and flourish then why can’t the UK do so once more by leaving. Nobody knows how we will be affected by leaving not even the politicians but to stay in will see even more of our rights and privileges disappearing. From the transport side a return to the old days of T forms is probably unlikely to happen but anything that will deter some of the foreign trucks invading the UK will be welcomed, and if it was’nt for the EU we would’nt all have to fork out for the driver CPC, especially as the Germans who after all invented the Tachograph have opted out. Trade with EU countries will likely continue as they have been, import customs still have to observed so there is no reason to change the system already in place. It seems most other countries are against Britain exiting because they fear others may want to follow leading to a break up of the EU
I vote out in the hope that there are enough people in government who would like to see the British public have more control over their country.
Franglais:
Good Morning All.
Seems to me theres pros & cons to both sides obviously, but I do come down quite firmly on one side. Trade: be it finance, manufacturing or agriculture all trading is done to agreed standards isnt it? As it is, were subject to EU regs, which we have a say in. If we leave well still have to conform to the same regs to trade with the EU, but wont be able to have a say in the regs. Dont sound good to me.
Firstly just like any other Federal system ‘we’ don’t have any say in EU policy because it’s the majority federal vote which counts of which we seem to have around a 12% share of influence while being a net contributor. While if we leave and re join EFTA are you seriously suggesting that the EU could win a trade war against the resulting bloc assuming we tell the EU to shove its bs rules.Bearing in mind that just concentrating on hitting German imports with punitive tarrifs in that case would be enough to bring Merkel grovelling to the table.
OUT ! But the problem is Lads, Cameron’s lot are scaremongering and a lot of the population are swallowing all the ■■■■■■■■ of the Stay campaign and wavering towards staying but if we keep our bottle and get the likes of Boris on the OUT side we might just pull it off, and that will be a bloody great result for the UK. There would then be the problem of Scotland seeking independence well if that’s what they want fair enough let them have it I say and re-instate the Border at Gretna and on the A1. Cheers Bewick.
Bloody hell Denis it took you a while to fire up in this debate, was you waiting for the air to build up. As for the Scots let them go if they want to but no support from Whitehall. Like I said before £55 million a day and for what, some un elected ■■■■ to make our laws up, this money could go straight to the NHS and you cant tell me any one would be against that Buzzer.
eddie snax:
All of this supposes, that the US would be prepared to say goodbye to NATO, which aint going to happen. The US needs the legitimacy given to it by being the lead Nation in NATO. Its military might is undeniable, spending more on “defence” than the next 10 biggest spenders added together, but the diplomatic clout achieved through the undoubted pressure it can weald over its fellow NATO members, means that the US foreign policy goals can almost allways be achieved, done so through an out would appearance of consensus amongst its NATO allies.
The US wont allow that to wither and die.
This being so, and the fact that a federal European military would require funding at a higher level than that which all EU nations, apart from Britain and France, are currently prepared to commit, or would likely be prepared to commit in the future, suggest that this is one aspiration that will never happen.
To form an EU military force, there would also need to be a void for it to fill, such a void wont exists whilst NATO exists, and as I suggest earlier, the US wont let NATO die, its and kind of quid pro quo, us Europeans give the US legitimacy in its foreign policy aims, and it pays for Europes protection.
It is another reason why the US though not wanting Britain to leave the EU, does want its most reliable ally to be slighty aloof from the main EU pack, as we then dance and squeal the US’s tune to the rather reluctant, but never the less adherent Europeans, and bang, the US wins again
Looking further into the future it is foreseeable that America could actually descend into an inter ethnic and Federalist v anti Federalist fight at home just as Yugoslavia did let alone tell anyone else what to do.Bearing in mind that in real terms the previous war of secession there cost it more casualties than all the other wars it’s been involved with combined.
As for NATO.The eventual and inevitable setting up of an EU federal military command would obviously be compatible with US domestic and foreign policy and thereby also NATO.Make no mistake us being forced into an EU federal system that we don’t want is in large part the result of US federalist ideology.In which case us not having used the British navy to smash US Federalism and it’s contagious spread,by entering the US war of secession on the side of the Confederate States,could eventually come back to bite everyone who values the idea of the nation state and self determination which is what that war was ‘actually’ about. 
chazzer:
In the beginning of the EU aka The Common Market with only 6 members it was a good idea, now with 28 member countries it has grown too unwieldy and diverse to be an efficient organisation. If Switzerland with all it’s borders joining an EU member state can survive and flourish then why can’t the UK do so once more by leaving. Nobody knows how we will be affected by leaving not even the politicians but to stay in will see even more of our rights and privileges disappearing. From the transport side a return to the old days of T forms is probably unlikely to happen but anything that will deter some of the foreign trucks invading the UK will be welcomed, and if it was’nt for the EU we would’nt all have to fork out for the driver CPC, especially as the Germans who after all invented the Tachograph have opted out. Trade with EU countries will likely continue as they have been, import customs still have to observed so there is no reason to change the system already in place. It seems most other countries are against Britain exiting because they fear others may want to follow leading to a break up of the EU
I vote out in the hope that there are enough people in government who would like to see the British public have more control over their country.
I don’t see how the re-implementation off a customs border, and that would have to happen, can do anything other than add cost to the goods we are either selling or buying to or from the EU.
You bemoan the DCPC, but I got a pay rise on the back of it, and My employer paid for the DCPC coarses I attended, and paid for My time to be there.
Never did log books, but the paper charts were as easy as anything to fiddle, all thought it was good at the time, but the digi tacho is pretty full proof, and that has given me a safer working environment.
This country as derogations from several transport rules, such as being able to use 4.5m high trailers on the cross EU border to Ireland, and to run 44tons across the same border. International EU traffic supposed to run at 40 tons and 4m.
robert1952:
Mr Gove this weekend on ‘OUT’:blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/mi … ing-leave/
Robert
Thanks Robert, Nothing that Gove says about lack off representation, cant also be levelled at this or any british government since ww2, More people didn’t vote tory, than did
As for comparing our leaving, to that of the birth of the USA as an independent sate is just laughable.
I know this country will succeed whether in or out the EU, I just don’t see the point in building a barrier to such a large trading block, that sit on our doorstep, and what ever is said, the EU will put hurdle after hurdle in front of our trade, after Brexit, they would have to, if for no other reason than to deter another member state doing the same.
Bewick:
OUT ! But the problem is Lads, Cameron’s lot are scaremongering and a lot of the population are swallowing all the ■■■■■■■■ of the Stay campaign and wavering towards staying but if we keep our bottle and get the likes of Boris on the OUT side we might just pull it off, and that will be a bloody great result for the UK. There would then be the problem of Scotland seeking independence well if that’s what they want fair enough let them have it I say and re-instate the Border at Gretna and on the A1. Cheers Bewick.
Blimey Bewick having that zb Boris onside is as bad as having Galloway.What’s wrong with David Davis and Liam Fox.If anyone can tear Cameron apart they can.As for Boris I wouldn’t trust that zb as far as could throw him.While it seems obvious that we’re going to have to reach an agreement with the SNP that independence will be a given assuming a Scottish majority for in and an English majority for out or the Scottish vote keeping us in if/when we’ve voted out.As anything different would be a travesty of democracy for both sides.
Carryfast:
[As for NATO.The eventual and inevitable setting up of an EU federal military command would obviously be compatible with US domestic and foreign policy and thereby also NATO.Make no mistake us being forced into an EU federal system that we don’t want is in large part the result of US federalist ideology.In which case us not having used the British navy to smash US Federalism and it’s contagious spread,by entering the US war of secession on the side of the Confederate States,could eventually come back to bite everyone who values the idea of the nation state and self determination which is what that war was ‘actually’ about.
Sorry but we will never see this the same, The US wont want an EU military command, for the very fact that they wish to be the leading nation on the planet, a rival federal state, to wit an EU state would be, is not and will never be in the self interest of the US. The 2003 Iraq served to highlight this to the states, as only one current(at that time) EU member (britian) took part in the original invasion, and the vast majority if not all EU nations of the time were totally hostile to it, If they allowed NATO to wither, they would lose the control they have at present, it aint happening.
eddie snax:
I know this country will succeed whether in or out the EU, I just don’t see the point in building a barrier to such a large trading block, that sit on our doorstep, and what ever is said, the EU will put hurdle after hurdle in front of our trade, after Brexit, they would have to, if for no other reason than to deter another member state doing the same.
The fact is the in campaign is using the threat of trade sanctions by the EU to keep its federalist dream alive in this case.The really laughable bit is that they are doing that from a position of UK trade deficit strength EU trade surplus weakness and the mugs who believe the bs are swallowing it.
So yeah right ‘hurdle after hurdle’ of ze Germans not being able to export goods to its largest export market ( us ) and from which it imports effectively zb all by comparison.IE we can only win that fight. 
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Good Morning All.
Seems to me theres pros & cons to both sides obviously, but I do come down quite firmly on one side. Trade: be it finance, manufacturing or agriculture all trading is done to agreed standards isnt it? As it is, were subject to EU regs, which we have a say in. If we leave well still have to conform to the same regs to trade with the EU, but wont be able to have a say in the regs. Dont sound good to me.
"“Firstly just like any other Federal system ‘we’ don’t have any say in EU policy because it’s the majority federal vote which counts of which we seem to have around a 12% share of influence while being a net contributor. While if we leave and re join EFTA are you seriously suggesting that the EU could win a trade war against the resulting bloc assuming we tell the EU to shove its bs rules.Bearing in mind that just concentrating on hitting German imports with punitive tarrifs in that case would be enough to bring Merkel grovelling to the table.”"Carryfast
I would suggest we do have a say, but obviously we cant dictate how everyone else should obey our own wishes... Going with the majority wish is what democracy is all about. Its been said by others that democracy is a really bad system, but it is better than the alternatives. (Apart from a benevolent dictator of course! Spose I could be persuaded if you ask) Telling any potential customer to "shove their rules" wont do much to help with balance of trade. If they specify safety rules and we choose not to comply… well… Surely we should be inside, to moderate excessive regulation? And excessive regulation is not a prerogative of the EU it seems to be an excuse for civil servants to build empires and expand their own departments. Who needs Brussels? We can just as easily double our domestic taxes and double the size of Whitehall ! So no change there then.
Our contributions are negotiated by our own national government and civil servants, any fault you find there should be laid at their door.
How would being a member of EFTA or any replacement organisation square with “punitive tariffs” against another member?
I dont think the EU system is faultless, far from it, but the past few UK governments, of all colours dont inspire any confidence from me.
Better to stay in and improve it.
eddie snax:
Carryfast:
[As for NATO.The eventual and inevitable setting up of an EU federal military command would obviously be compatible with US domestic and foreign policy and thereby also NATO.Make no mistake us being forced into an EU federal system that we don’t want is in large part the result of US federalist ideology.In which case us not having used the British navy to smash US Federalism and it’s contagious spread,by entering the US war of secession on the side of the Confederate States,could eventually come back to bite everyone who values the idea of the nation state and self determination which is what that war was ‘actually’ about.Sorry but we will never see this the same, The US wont want an EU military command, for the very fact that they wish to be the leading nation on the planet, a rival federal state, to wit an EU state would be, is not and will never be in the self interest of the US. The 2003 Iraq served to highlight this to the states, as only one current(at that time) EU member (britian) took part in the original invasion, and the vast majority if not all EU nations of the time were totally hostile to it, If they allowed NATO to wither, they would lose the control they have at present, it aint happening.
How do you leap to the conclusion that the US sees a Federal Europe as a threat when it clearly and predictably sees it as an asset to justify its domestic position at home.With EU eastward expansion and its close ties with NATO being an obvious part of that agenda. 
It’s a Confederal ( anti Federalist ) Europe in which Nation State Sovereignty is supreme with a non Federal military command is what America would really see as a threat to its domestic governmental system probably to the point of imposing sanctions to stop it.
Franglais:
I would suggest we do have a say, but obviously we cant dictate how everyone else should obey our own wishes... Going with the majority wish is what democracy is all about. Its been said by others that democracy is a really bad system, but it is better than the alternatives. (Apart from a benevolent dictator of course! Spose I could be persuaded if you ask) Telling any potential customer to "shove their rules" wont do much to help with balance of trade. If they specify safety rules and we choose not to comply… well… Surely we should be inside, to moderate excessive regulation? And excessive regulation is not a prerogative of the EU it seems to be an excuse for civil servants to build empires and expand their own departments. Who needs Brussels? We can just as easily double our domestic taxes and double the size of Whitehall ! So no change there then.
Our contributions are negotiated by our own national government and civil servants, any fault you find there should be laid at their door.
How would being a member of EFTA or any replacement organisation square with “punitive tariffs” against another member?I don
t think the EU system is faultless, far from it, but the past few UK governments, of all colours dont inspire any confidence from me.
Better to stay in and improve it.
It isn’t an issue of telling the ‘others’ what to do.It’s an issue of the state governments of each member state having supreme sovereignty over what rules and laws are imposed within ‘its own’ state borders and the democratic accountability which goes with it.IE the right of opt out and state law being supreme within the state.While Federalism isn’t democracy it’s the opposite in doing exactly what you’re referring to in using a foreign majority vote to impose rules on all.
While you seem to be saying that majority foreign control is better than the idea of if we don’t like who’s governing us within our own borders then we have the right to throw them out subject to an internal vote within those borders.Which is why we rightly told Napoleon to zb off and shove his European rule.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
I would suggest we do have a say, but obviously we cant dictate how everyone else should obey our own wishes... Going with the majority wish is what democracy is all about. Its been said by others that democracy is a really bad system, but it is better than the alternatives. (Apart from a benevolent dictator of course! Spose I could be persuaded if you ask) Telling any potential customer to "shove their rules" wont do much to help with balance of trade. If they specify safety rules and we choose not to comply… well… Surely we should be inside, to moderate excessive regulation? And excessive regulation is not a prerogative of the EU it seems to be an excuse for civil servants to build empires and expand their own departments. Who needs Brussels? We can just as easily double our domestic taxes and double the size of Whitehall ! So no change there then.
Our contributions are negotiated by our own national government and civil servants, any fault you find there should be laid at their door.
How would being a member of EFTA or any replacement organisation square with “punitive tariffs” against another member?I don
t think the EU system is faultless, far from it, but the past few UK governments, of all colours dont inspire any confidence from me.
Better to stay in and improve it.It isn’t an issue of telling the ‘others’ what to do.It’s an issue of the state governments of each member state having supreme sovereignty over what rules and laws are imposed within ‘its own’ state borders and the democratic accountability which goes with it.IE the right of opt out and state law being supreme within the state.While Federalism isn’t democracy it’s the opposite in doing exactly what you’re referring to in using a foreign majority vote to impose rules on all.
While you seem to be saying that majority foreign control is better than the idea of if we don’t like who’s governing us within our own borders then we have the right to throw them out subject to an internal vote within those borders.Which is why we rightly told Napoleon to zb off and shove his European rule.
I dont like the EU system of unelected commissioners. If youre arguing against that Im totally with you. But I find it hard to accept your points about internal votes. We could as an independent country vote to ignore euro emissions laws on cars, but that wouldnt allow us to make any sales in the EU. Making two different types of vehicle for domestic and export seems unnecessary. (yeah, ok, lhd rhd, but will you accept the principal? )
And I repeat that going with the majority is what democracy is about. If the residents of the Isle of Wight have a democratic vote, to allow unregulated disposal of nuclear waste on their own land, or allow devil worship or wtf, have they not that right? Surely not. If they want to do that, they`ve got to convince Parliament, not just declare UDI for the IoW. What would your idea of a minimum state size be?
And so far we have opted out of Schengen and the EuroZone. Surely we can stay in, try to steer the EU on a sensible course, but keep opting out where needed?