European Union : In or out?

Many argue that the European Union (EU) has become an unaccountable, undemocratic federation with too many powers. Is it wrong that EU directives (EU law) supersedes British law? Is it right to have free labour movements between 27 states when the UK is suffering a recession?
Although the EU has a parliament, a single state’s objection to a new piece of legislation would make no difference if the other 26 states were in favour of it.

Nation states no longer get a veto when deciding on new legislation. New legislation is put through either by consensus among the members, or by qualified majority voting. Thus countries cannot block legislation they strongly disagree with.

Essentially the EU is too great a body to legislate and the power should be handed back to Westminster.

The EU is arguably a drain on the British economy. A huge amount of money given to the EU is allocated to bureaucracy and wasteful spending such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In 2006, a whopping 45% EU spending went towards the CAP, [[]].
To put this in perspective, that’s almost half EU spending allocated towards an industry that employs only 5% EU citizens and generates 1.6% GDP [[]].

This is truly unneccessary and is unequally distributed, France reportedly benefitting immensely, while countries with very little agricultural sectors seeing few benefits, and yet expected to foot the bill for this wasteful policy.
The European Union is run by unelected, unaccountable elites whose power is vast. They often bring in legislation that has not been voted on in our national parliament, yet supercedes our own laws that do pass through such democratic processes.

“The common denominator between national and multi-level governing procedures is that each is tasked with coordinating opinion, and ultimately policy and resources, into a common pool. Power and influence within the European Union structures are divided, although somewhat disparately, between the European Parliament (EP), the Council of Ministers and the Commission. These bodies are designed to check and balance one another. In member states, citizens have the opportunity to influence national policy making through their elected officials. In the EU’s multi-tiered system, the closest a citizen comes to impacting a policy decision is through their elected representative to the European Parliament.” 

The main advantage of Europol is that it enables criminals that cross borders to be tracked and arrested easily by a multinational force. However, if is considered that Britain is an island, the likelihood of criminals crossing our borders is quite low, thus rendering the major advantage of Europol somewhat irrelevant.

If the aims of the UK are to fight global terror then surely it would be of greater benefit to strengthen relations with the United States where there is a far stronger focus on tackling this issue.

Britain must remain its own country. Being a part of the EU threatens national identity and the UK economy amongst other things. Britain does not need to rely on its European neighbours in order to succeed.

In the Labour Party manifesto I was promised a referendum by Tony Blair, this was reneged upon and I have been forced into this position by lies and subterfuge by the present Labour party and many other lying cheating politicians over the years, I do not believe that Gordon Brown had the legal right to sign us all up to being members of the EU by voting for the Lisbon treaty in our names when we had not been given the promised Referendum, I see the whole exercise as one giant confidence trick and I will never accept it.

Since joining teh EU, especially in the more recent years the amount of immigrants from the EU somewhere around 200,000, with roughly 1/3 of those people coming over for work related reasons.

Not only that but also in terms of asylum seekers or nationals who are being funnelled here by other EU states (France) who do not want to deal with these people themselves.

Additional to this, in recent years legislation was passed that the UK hospital system would be fully open for other EU members. This is a system which costs the UK billions per year, with a fair potion of this money being spent on foreigners who have paid little to no money to make use of the facilities. This has resulted not only in an increased cost to us, having to pay for additional doctors and nurse which we simply do not have. But has also causes increased waiting times for the British citizens who have paid to keep this service running.

Not only this, but the amount of immigration has resulted in a loss of national identity, with traditional British values being relegated to second place while we instead focus on catering to the needs of foreign groups and their own religions and beliefs.

There are many ways in which the UK could maintain its free trade with Europe – Switzerland and Norway have free trade with the EU but are not members. The UK imports more from EU member states than it exports to them, so they would be substantially harming their own economies if they imposed tariffs.

In for a penny in for a pound .. or not…

The UK chose not to commit to the single currency and has been treating the EU like a restaurant menu .

The UK should do the decent thing and leave. It’s too late to commit fully , you had your chances , you blew it.

When it comes to making contracts for business ventures , making allowances for education abroad , businesses etc have been making allowances and have been including UK businesses . That general way of thinking should just change. Polish and other eastern European labor is a lot cheaper for western European countries .

As a citizen of a European state that’s been in 100% since the start I say the British can hide their demands where the sun fails to shine and simply bugger off.

Point: The people from the EU member states don’t want someone on the side of the pool , 1 foot in the water , making demands .

Although Britain is in a bit of a bad state as it is, British taxes are still being used to give other European governments huge amounts of money. Unemployment is up and our country appears to be coasting, desperately avoiding a double dip recession. If we could withdraw Britain from the EU, become self-sufficient and start trade routes with other countries we could be so much better. Instead, our taxpayers money is being used to pay for other Europeans rather than British nationals. It is depriving British people of work and advantages which they ought to have.


It is a lie that we will not trade if we leave the EU… We have HUGE trading partners outside the EU.
They tell us this so we are afraid to “Go it alone”..we should get out. We are being robbed HOURLY!!

There was talks of Britian becoming part of the new monetary change making us use Euro instead of the BRITISH pound.

If we pull out of EU the British public will have more of a chance of getting jobs. When the British earn we will then start spending in our economy. Most EU nationals send their money home to be spent in their economy so this is definitely not helping the UK! The only question for me though is what would happen to the EU people already here?

If pensioners living in Spain etc are forced to leave and return to the UK, then the pensions that are paid to them(by the UK) would then be spent in the UK and not in Spain, thus redistributed back in the country. It would not be in the EUs interest to return pensioners back to the UK.

 it is no coincidence that all the banks “jumped ship” at once…. nor that the peoples are being starved into the ground as borders are opened for all.

It is no coincidence that hundreds of concentration camps are being built in American Desert areas.

It is no coincidence that Mexico, USA and Canada are trying to for the Americo union with an “Americo” coin.

It is no coincidence either that the EU is trying to remove Each countries rights underits own constitution.

They have done this in preparation fro the NWO………………. Google the New World Order” and learn.
The one point that matters above all is not spoken of at all!
Economical and political ties

The developing countries colloquially known as the BRIC nations (Brasil, Russia, India and China), provide British businesses and entrepreneurs with an unparalleled opportunity to grow into a somewhat untapped emerging markets. This opportunity is indeed limited by the clutch of Brussels. The belief that staying with the EU is vital to the UK economy is a narrow minded approach, when considering the more holistic trading opportunities that an EU free UK will have to provide. Removing ourselves from the EU would allow us to make the independent decisions necessary to improve the UK’s bi-lateral trade with the BRIC countries and other nations, which as a consequence will act to bolster the political ties and relations we share with these countries whom we engage in trade with. In addition to the aforementioned one can say that due to the UK’s geographical proximity to Europe, trade with the countries within the EU will continue to be a vital and significant contributor to the UK economy. In Layman’s terms should the UK leave the EU, we would have greater flexibility in deciding which countries we engage with both politically and economically. If this opportunity itself is nurtured and utilized appropriately by the Government, leaving the EU may mark the start of the Golden Age of the British economy
Although it is true that the initial aims of the community were to aid regional security, now that the bonds of trade and co-operation have been established we no longer need to be an official part of that union to retain the peace and goodwill.

Additionally the ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the U.S means that we are not as dependent upon EU security as we could be an thus we are no longer tied to the union for reasons of protection.

Edit: The peace in Europe has nothing to do with the EU, once people realise it’s only going to cause more violence at least because of the ideologically corrupt power hungry idea that Europe can become the next world superpower, hence Germany’s irrational support. Britons don’t want that and neither did the millions of us who died to stop it.

Genial trade relations should continue even if we left the EU, however, “if there were genuine concern about the EU pursuing discriminatory trade policies against the UK, then the UK could also join NAFTA to create countervailing power in the event of traded disputes. NAFTA allows each member to pursue its own trade agenda, provided it allows other NAFTA members free access in agreed trade areas. It would therefore be entirely consistent with the UK’s free trade policy.”[[Minford, Mahambare and Nowell 2006]]

Trans-national corporations can still be have a presence in the UK as in Switzerland and Norway with the UK being an EU member. Indeed were the UK to leave then the British government would be in a position to attract inward investment and create jobs which it can not do inside the ever restrictive EU legislative framework.

Trade is not a function of EU membership. Indeed Switzerland and Norway have no problem trading with the EU. membership of the The European Economic Area is what is required. Britain could leave teh EU, saved billions, and still trade equally as well. The EU is not about trade, it is about a centralised federal government.

Surely it would be better for the British to gain qualifications in the UK. The fees have most likely gone up again because the British Public are not spending in the UK. England used to be a rich country and we used to be admired for our skills and heritage. Now all the EU countries treat the UK as a meal ticket for their families in their home countries. Get us out of the EU fast. If people desperately want to pay cheaper tuition fees then maybe everywhere should have a visa system rather than letting people move countries just because they think they’re going to get it easier.

[ Media coverage ]

Has Rupert Murdoch changed his mind about Britain’s membership of the European Union.

 An article in the Mail on Sunday states with confidence that he has made “a spectacular U-turn” by abandoning “plans to campaign for Britain to withdraw from the EU”.

But a tweet by Murdoch contests the claim, claiming the paper has made a “weird leap” and there has been a “misunderstanding somewhere”.

Walters’s article cites “a well-placed source” as saying: “Mr Murdoch’s view of the EU has mellowed in recent years. He is no fan of bureaucratic blocs but if it comes down to a choice between Britain getting out of the EU or staying, he would stay in”.

It alleges that Murdoch now believes that leaving the EU could damage British industry. Given Murdoch’s long antagonism towards the EU, the use of the adjective “spectacular” is warranted. Then again, Murdoch appears to be denying it.

can Murdoch change that opinion? Can the Sun really turn on its head to tell readers that they are better off inside the EU after all?

This was the paper that published a series of front page attacks in the early 1990s on the then European Commission president, Jacques Delors.

Remember “Up Yours Delors” in 1990 and the call by the Sun two years later for readers to burn Delors in effigy on Guy Fawkes night bonfires. The paper has campaigned relentlessly against the EU ever since.

Moving on 20 years to December 2011, when Cameron used Britain’s veto to block an EU-wide treaty, the Sun greeted the news with a splash headlined “Up Eurs” with a photoshopped picture of “bulldog” Cameron giving a two-fingered salute.

And the Sun has long raged against the EU’s open borders policy because it facilitates an influx of what it regards as economic refugees.

One certainty is that Cameron will not be able to change that particular policy during his negotiations to reform the terms of Britain’s EU membership ahead of an in-out referendum.

However, a close reading of the Sun’s leading articles about the EU in recent years suggests that it has not argued for Brexit. For example, on 10 December 2011, its editorial said:

“Britain’s interest lies in being in Europe but not surrendering to Europe”.

Is that Murdoch’s genuine and nuanced view? Will he really want the Sun to persuade its readers to vote “yes” in a referendum? Even so, can the Sun change public opinion to accord with Murdoch’s alleged change of mind? Or is it all, as Murdoch indicates, no more than a “weird” misunderstanding?

*This blogpost was amended at 2pm following the appearance of Murdoch’s tweet 55 minutes earlier


      Getty image.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s