What do you guys think Cameron keeps on about a reformed EU but what is that?
If you are asking other people for their opinion, don't you think it's appropriate to start out by saying what your opinion is?
Please vote "No"!
This cherry picking appears to me to be very unfair and single-sided. (And Thatcher already got very special conditions on payments.) I still remember my history classes and I do not want this bunch of single countries with hidden background alliances anymore. The more we stick together the better. Concentrate on your commonwealth and don't stop others from creating the future. The alternative will lead to pure horror.
You seem to be saying simultaneously "let's stick together" and "let's not stick together". Perhaps it's because I don't live in the EU but I can't follow at all whatever it is that you are talking about.
The conditions the British negotiated are basically: Give us the free market and let us alone on any other issue. This I call cherry-picking and I want them to leave. The rest of us should stick together more and more which is not possible with the British onboard.
The rest I've said is about the various reasons that led to centuries of senseless wars between changing countries. The world wars only have been the latest and causes were multifarious. A lot was due to secret diplomacies. The EU is (until now) a good concept to avoid the mistakes that have been made in former times. I don't want it to fail.
I'm definitely in favour of staying in the EU but not in favour of keeping Cameron.
I think we should opt out, the reforms Cameron keep referring to have not been spelled out to us, we do not want any more immigration, our country is over populated all ready. And we want to have government for the English not for an EU.
I agree with all that, but I think that if we "go it alone" it will create a "them versus us" situation in Europe.
At least we have so far been able to avoid the fundamental problems inherent in the single currency, as spectacularly demonstrated by Greece.
Speaking for all the Canadians, Australians, Americans, New Zealanders, Indians, Chinese and Swiss on PF, I say "No, we shouldn't stay in the EU"
The problems with the single currency are because the EU has monetary union without political union. It seems to me (I'm from the US) that the EU needs more integration, not less. How can you have monetary union when each country is free to set their own budget?
We had a thread some time back on the Euro crisis. It's amazing to me that the system works at all (albeit I'm a straight-up noob on Economics).
And, as I recall, the "crisis" still has not been resolved.
Some departments in the EU are bananas see the regulations and why we think they are nuts.
As with so many questions, it's not a matter of what's wrong with the current situation (which is a very long list and very exasperating) but rather whether changing would actually result in any overall improvement. The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.
I'm seeing a disturbing trend towards more narrowly focused self-interest everywhere, illustrated for example by Donald Trump. Many of us grew up with the lessons of how we need to prevent unfairness and conflict by extending the natural human tendency to classify people into "us" and "them" so that as many as possible come into the "us" group, but it seems these lessons have gone out of fashion.
Stay in the EU, please. We don't need to be giving any more momentum to nationalism right now. The last 400 years have pretty decisively shown that Europe + nationalist sentiment = bad stuff.
You do have a single currency in the USA. If I remember it was not all that easy in the first 20 years?
(At least European governments have not yet been caught forging Euro banknotes as I heard happened with dollars in some States! )
The recent rise of the nationalist parties and groups in Europe are directly related to the EU and it's actions. Nationalism is kept in check by trade, not remote central government. Europe does not require an EU for trade.
The single currency works under a single government, the same government that is answerable for all the spending and taxing. Greece is the result of a single currency shared by governments not soley responsible for stability of the currency. Many observers predicted as much at the creation of the Euro.
But before you can have peaceful free trade you have to have willingness to cooperate and some kind of assurance of recourse. To that end, the EU doesn't directly solve the nationalism problem, but the status of the EU is sort of an indicator of the state of nationalism. To keep nationalism in check, we have to prevent it from accomplishing any of its policy goals in order to hinder its political legitimacy, necessary because (among other reasons) trade becomes difficult if cooperation deteriorates.
Many independent nations enjoy cooperation and recourse, as did Europe for decades before the EU.
Lately the EU is a reverse indicator, if anything. Remote governments don't prevent nationalism, trade and local authority responsible to voters does. Speech codes and remote governments only make it worse.
The difference is that those countries (China, USA, India, etc) are typically much larger economically and industrially. If a tiny little country like, say, Finland, tried to go it alone in the geopolitical economy then they would not stand a chance.
Wouldn't that apply to any form of government though? After all, the US Federal government is more "remote" than state governments, which are more remote than county and city governments, but we still have a "remote" federal government because it turns out (after the US tried the Articles of Confederation and nearly became a failed state) it's better in many ways to have a central authority than to not have one. All government is necessarily "remote". The world would not be a better place right now if everyone decided "I'm a special snowflake because of where I happened to be born therefore different rules should apply to me than to everyone else."
Norway, Switzerland, and several others European countries are not in the EU, with similar or higher per capita GDP compared to the US. They are however in the EFTA.
With regard to the size of government, see Montesquieu as cited by Brutus in the mostly forgotten anti -federalist
Madison won the argument in federalist 10 when the US was to be 13 states. My guess, if there had been an attempt to start a continent sized country with 50 states the federalists would be the forgotten authors.
To have even a glimmer of an opinion I'd have to know what the rights and responsibilities of EU member nations are. I don't.
I thought the EU was only about money, but was proved wrong when they passed that non-binding Snowden resolution.
There's an argument that in case of a 'Brexit', Scotland might attempt another referendum in order to break from the UK and remain in the EU. Seeing how close the 2014 Scottish independence campaign came, and how well the SNP performed in the 2015 general elections, this extra incentive might prove decisive.
The dichotomy between England and Scotland regarding the Brexit is attested in many opinion polls:
I'd hate to see Scotland going it alone.
Similarly, given the concentration of UK EU attachment in Scotland, should Scotland leave first leave the UK for some reason a Brexit is guranteed.
I think the best for the UK would be to get out of the EU and stay in EFTA, like Norway, so it would still benefit from free movement of people, which makes the UK receive many educated people from all over Europe to work, and benefit from free trade without barriers. At the same time, it would get more control over fishing, industry and the financial sector. Particularly on finance, EU is closing in on banking practices, to get more control over capital movements and tax evasion, and the UK would be better to stay out of this to keep being a financial hub.
An interesting read on the topic: http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum
Separate names with a comma.