Why the U.K. Needs to Leave the E.U.

[Glacier]

In summary: Taxation without representation is tyranny.

[the truth]

best thing they could do is vote to leave the EU

[Hurtlander]

Another perspective.

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/29/brexit_ ... e_know_it/

[occasional thoughts]

I'd just like to say that . . . I have absolutely no opinion on the topic. But there was another thread a couple of weeks ago about P.M. Trudeau telling the U.K. shouldn't leave, and I opined that he shouldn't butt into citizen referendum issues. Not smart, and we wouldn't appreciate the advice of other nations on votes such as Meech Lake. That's all, as you were.

[Barney Google]

I agree with you OT. JT should not be commenting or advising on matters such as this. Where is Canada's former beloved stance of remaining neutral on International issues? I can't wait til President Trump starts 'advising' Canada's "Royal Head of State". I'm also concerned about JT publicly admonishing a Chinese Official over an interaction with a reporter. There is a time and place for addressing these concerns...via the media is not one of them.

[occasional thoughts]

"Vive le Quebec libre" or words not in my first language to that effect ring in my ears when I think of this sort of topic. And that's when and how the book was written on what Canadians think about international meddlers in our internal affairs.

[Ka-El]

Britain’s exit from the EU would spell trouble for all of us

<snip>

With the referendum on the U.K.’s future in the European Union just two weeks away, opinion polls have suddenly tilted toward a departure. The BBC’s poll tracker, which crunches all the numbers, now has Leave out front by five points, 48 to 43, and the undecided vote down to just nine per cent. It’s an indication that all those dire warnings from David Cameron’s Remain side about the economic consequences of withdrawal—mass job losses, a “homegrown” recession, and decades of trade turmoil—seem to be turning voters off, rather than scaring them. The campaign’s dominant issue has instead become immigration, fed by mounting public worries about the three million-and-counting EU citizens who have taken up U.K. residence since 2004, putting pressure on housing, the health system and other public services.

The temptation to indulge in the country’s last socially acceptable prejudice—a withering disdain for European bureaucracy that crosses all party lines—grows stronger by the day.

“This is our chance to get back at a political class who has given away everything we ever had, everything we ever fought for, everything we want to hand over to our grandchildren,” Farage thunders. “This is the vote when we can get back everything.”

<snip>

Cameron struggled to make the case for staying in the EU. “It’s 500 million people. It’s the biggest market in the world. It’s something Britain worked very hard to create,” he told the studio guests, and a select audience at home who chose politics over England v. Portugal, the national side’s last tune-up match before Euro 2016. “If you don’t have a strong economy, you can’t have the health system you want, or the schools you want . . . to leave would be an act of self-harm.”

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/westbenga ... id=SL5MDHP

[Lady tehMa]

So what is the motivation behind the Brit's desire to leave the EU?

[the truth]

lets be honest the number 1 reason, the muslim issue-- imo--

[Lady tehMa]

How would exiting the EU affect that?

[Ka-El]

So what is the motivation behind the Brit's desire to leave the EU?

The immigration issue factors in for sure, but interestingly it is the concern over the mass immigration of Poles and other Eastern European immigrants, not Muslims, that has created the greatest concern. The other major concern seems to be a strong desire to be free from EU red tape and political interference.

The decision to grant Poles and other Eastern Europeans unfettered access to Britain a decade ago was, according to Jack Straw, a former Labour home secretary, “a spectacular mistake.”

http://www.economist.com/node/21647791

David Cameron, the prime minister, has promised an in/out referendum vote on Britain’s EU membership by the end of 2017 if the Conservatives remain in power on May 7th. Several other smaller parties, notably the UK Independence Party (UKIP), are campaigning specifically to leave the EU. Moreover, polls show that any referendum would be an extremely tight one. Why might Britain be leaving the EU, and how would it happen?

Even at the best of times Britain has always been a semi-detached member of the EU. The first post-war Labour governments turned down the opportunity to participate in the negotiations that led to the birth of the forerunner of the EU in the early 1950s. Since then Britain has often been more sceptical of the European project than committed to it; the country has been called “the awkward partner”. Britain eventually joined what was then called the European Communities under a Tory government in 1973, as Europe seemed to be doing so well economically. But the next Labour government quickly held a referendum on membership in 1975. The majority, on that occasion, voted to stay in, but over the past few decades British governments have kept their distance as others within Europe pursued "ever closer union". Britain did not join the single currency, and it is not a member of the Schengen passport-free travel zone. Traditional hostility to the EU has increased in recent years with the arrival of hundreds of thousands of east Europeans (quite legally, under EU rules) to find work, which has caused parties such as UKIP to assert that they are hogging an unfair proportion of the housing, school-places and health services that should go to Britons.

But it is unclear how the referendum would actually work. No country has ever voted to leave the EU before. Mr Cameron has promised to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s relationship with the EU before such a vote, to get a better deal for Britain. If those negotiations, in areas like immigration, proceed well then his government would presumably recommend that people vote to stay in the EU. If not then a Conservative government might conceivably recommend that Britain leave. But it may also be very uncertain by the time that the referendum is held exactly what these “renegotiations” add up to, especially if there is no agreement on a treaty change. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats oppose Mr Cameron’s referendum.

The consequences of a Brexit a hard to gauge. Those in favour of leaving argue passionately that it would liberate Britain from the suffocating hold of EU red tape and political interference, and free up the country’s businesses to trade more successfully with the rest of the world. Those against a Brexit argue, with equal passion, that it would jeopardise Britain’s trade with its major commercial partner (now worth about £400 billion a year). A Brexit would also make the country a much less attractive destination for foreign investment in Britain, as many companies come to the country in part because of its access to EU markets. In fact, much would depend on how Britain’s relations with the EU fare after a Brexit. The country could become like Switzerland, which has an association with the EU, or more like Norway and Iceland, which are inside the European Economic Area, and thus the internal market, but with no power to change the rules of that market. Or, Britain might find a spurned EU an unwilling partner. What is clear, however, is that any referendum will invite a prolonged period of uncertainty, both before and after the event. That alone should create plenty of political and economic turmoil in Britain, regardless of the referendum vote itself.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economis ... xplains-29

[Lady tehMa]

So it would seem to be a sovereignty issue at its heart then? They'd be able to control immigration as well as other areas that are currently out of their hands?

[Ka-El]

Among the multiple existential challenges facing the European Union this year – refugees, populist politics, German-inspired austerity, government bankruptcy in Greece and perhaps Portugal – one crisis is well on its way to resolution. Britain will not vote to leave the EU. This confident prediction may seem to be contradicted by polls showing roughly 50% support for “Brexit” in the June referendum.

<snip>

… only when Britain starts seriously debating the costs and benefits of leaving the EU – and this may not happen until a few weeks before the referendum – will voters realize that Brexit would mean huge economic costs for Britain and no political benefits whatsoever.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ave-the-eu

[Hurtlander]

This was posted on the previous thread about Britains exit from the EU
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/29/brexit_ ... e_know_it/
It definitely something the British need to consider before the referendum.

[Ka-El]

So it would seem to be a sovereignty issue at its heart then? They'd be able to control immigration as well as other areas that are currently out of their hands?

The sovereignty issue cannot be underscored, for sure ...

The Brexit Balance Sheet

BRUSSELS – Prime Minister David Cameron’s offer to British citizens to hold a referendum on whether to leave the European Union might have seemed like a reasonably safe gamble just a few years ago. Most people then probably would have voted to stay. That was before the Greek crisis created havoc in the eurozone, and the arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees caused the EU (although not the United Kingdom) to lose control of some of its borders.

Cameron might actually get other European leaders to agree to his demands for reform, without which he has said he would not campaign to keep his country in the EU. They are not extreme: a guarantee that non-eurozone members gain full access to the single market; less red tape at the EU level; a British exemption from “ever-closer union.” His last demand – fewer benefits for EU migrants – will be the hardest for EU leaders to accept.

Despite this reform push, some British Euroskeptics have criticized Cameron for being too soft. The temptation in Britain simply to abandon what appears to be a sinking ship and go it gloriously alone is growing stronger. This is understandable. The question is whether “Brexit” would be as glorious as its proponents like to imagine.

Unleashed from the rule of Brussels, the sirens of Brexit promise, Britain would once again be a beacon of freedom in the world, respected by China, tied to the United States in the bilateral “special relationship,” and all the while retaining friendly commercial ties with the European continent. Business would boom, the City of London would prosper, and Britons never would be slaves, not of the EU or anyone else.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/comme ... rrier=true