With regard to the 2nd paragraph, I meant that the tone of the suggestion to ‘renew an economic covenant’ with commonwealth nations isn’t simply trading with them, it implies special trade relationships, and I can’t see why anyone would want to enter into this when they can already trade with us.

By all means trade with whomever you wish anywhere in the world, but to pretend that it would be better to shun the European partners and try to build up new relationships all across the world would not increase our prosperity one bit.

The referendum case is usually justified for changes to our constitution. The referendum being proposed for Scottish indeoendence is just such a case. Our constitution is totally unaffected by our membership of NATO and the UN. Even UN resolutions committing us to deploy troops in anger are debated in Westminster.

Our constitution has already been affected by our membership of the EU in that a large percentage of laws and regulations which affect the day to day lives of all of us are not debated and made in Westminster but determined in Brussels.

But how are they determined? Is it by an acceptable process? The argument that they aren’t made in this country could be made for any given area.

‘Why should people in England get a say in Welsh matters?’ says a man in Cardiff. So Wales declares independence.
‘Why should people in Swansea get a say in what happens in Cardiff?’ he continues, so Cardiff becomes a city state. etc, etc. The question becomes, where do we draw the line?

The Laws may not have been debated in London, but British MEPs have debated on them, just somewhere else, with colleagues representing constituents elsewhere, what is so wrong about this? Are other people in western Europe so very different? Are there any examples out there of EU law directly harming the UK, if they are so terrible?

Lincoln7, I notice you said that until we joined the EU, things were going well here in the UK, I take it you mean that every subsequent problem the country has faced has been caused by the EU? Care to elaborate?

I don’t want to sound sarcastic with any of these questions, really I don’t, I just want to get some specifics to discuss. I don’t pretend for a minute the EU is perfect or anywhere near, but I don’t think that leaving it would do us any good, far from it!

You can also leave the EU, there are specific, unambiguous provisions for it in the Treaty of the European Union:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

😉

Allow me…

Our referendum in 1974 was to join the European Economic Community…that is what we voted for – NOT a ‘Union’ that we have ended up with…blatently undemocratic…and no further chance to voice our opinion.

Also there have been instances where the EU has got its way by holding repeat referendums (referenda ?) until they got the answer they wanted (ie Ireland ?)

I don’t remember there being a referendum for the UK joining NATO, or the UN, or our subsequent signing of the Universal declaration of human rights etc.

Do you agree that the governments that you elect are entitled to make decisions on your behalf? Every further step of European integration has been taken by governments elected by people in the UK, so how is this undemocratic?

They Key decisions are made by the unelected Council and Commission: The Council is made up of heads of state or their representatives, e.g. the PM. They meet to discuss matters of joint importance, and the person chairing the meeting has the title of ‘President’. How is this undemocratic. How is it any worse than, say, the UN security council? I don’t see anyone here saying the UK should pull out from that. The Commission is very similar, member states appoint their own representatives. Do you contend that these positions should be elected? If so, why do we not elect Ambassadors, or our UN representatives?

Much like there are Welsh MPs sitting in Westminster who do not represent me, there is a French member of the Council, elected by his or her people, to represent them there. What is the substantive difference?

No, indeed it is not and there is strong evidence that, given the opportunity, many electorates would have voted against the Euro. But that is not the way the undemocratic EU works, unfortunately.

So..how is the EU undemocratic? Do you mind pointing to specific example?

A rapid exodus from the EU followed by a military covenant with the US and France and an economic covenant with the Commonwealth might be ideal for the UK.

What good would that do us? The vast majority of our trade is with EU nations, pulling out would just mean our businesses have to compete with the tariffs placed on non-EU goods. If you advocate a free trade agreement with the EU, we would be in the position of being along for the ride but not being able to set policy, the same position the French were in with NATO for many years.

While the UK is still a major economy, we simply cannot negotiate from a position of strength with other, larger economies, such as the US, China, and this is only going to get worse as other economies grow. The EU is an economic superpower, and it gives us a chance to achieve some level of economic parity.

I am always intrigued when people mention economic links to the commonwealth, what benefits would this bring; what improvements to our current situation? And what makes you think the commonwealth nations would even be interested? Canada is in NAFTA and is mainly trading with the US, Australia is growing rich from mineral exports, and why would India want to limit themselves in world trade? It seems to me that harking back to our commonwealth links is very outdated thinking.

As for NATO, the UK definitely needs to spend more, I would like to see a return to around 3.5-4% of GDP, but it’s probably wishful thinking.

Why not just more F-16s?

Cheaper than F-15 variants, and in the situation SK faces, numbers are required. In terms of capability, cost, existing experience and the threat they face, I really think the F-16 would fit the bill nicely.