All I'm hearing is that we should stand just back and let the EU and the US dictate our policies, and pay for the privilege. Despite being one of the most powerful countries in the world in economic and military terms. I think it's sick that the US wants to foster on us, their best friends apparently, a political situation they would not except for themselves in a million years. When I see a North American Union, with the USA giving up its sovereignty to Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean nations etc, then I'll take their advice to stay in the EU.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, is a superpower, and is much larger than the UK geographically as well. Taking all those factors together and you can see why it would never be part of the union in the same way as the UK is part of the EU. In fact, the US is already a type of union, because it's made up of states remember. As a result, trying to compare the UK with the US in terms of membership of a political union is like comparing apples with oranges, it just doesn't work.
Saying that the UK is one of the most powerful countries in the world might sound impressive on paper, but in reality it doesn't amount to much. The United States and China are way ahead, and while the UK is fifth, it is barely ahead of other major players in the EU. Take a look at the statistics to see the evidence:
World Economic League Table 2015 | Centre for Economics and Business Research. As you can see the UK is behind Germany, and only fractionally ahead of France and Italy. The UK's economy is not strong enough to go it alone. Indeed, opinion poll data shows that the economy is Brexit's weakest argument and the strongest argument for the Stronger In campaign.
In terms of military forces, spending on defence in the UK is falling and the size of the military is shrinking. The UK learnt the hard way that it had lost any semblance of hard power during the Suez crisis. Outside of NATO and the EU, the UK has no military power whatsoever and cannot take action alone. The US, the UK's major partner on international security, wants the UK to remain in the EU to take the lead on security and defence issues there.
What you're claiming is, therefore, not supported by the evidence.
And as for the EU itself, they're happy to take our money in contributions but they don't want to hear us out on anything. We've been outvoted so many times. They are certainly not our friends, as their threats to us demonstrate. Being in the EU certainly doesn't stop Spain harassing the UK over Gibraltar for example. When the EU tells Spain to back off once and for all over the Rock then I'll believe that they're our friends.
My research area is Spain, including Anglo-Spanish relations, so I can assure you that the Spain does not 'harass the UK' about Gibraltar
. Having interviewed various former ambassadors from this country to Spain, it's true that Gibraltar represents a stumbling block at times in the relationship, but the leadership of Gibraltar often brings this on themselves by refusing to compromise over many issues when the UK government tries to make a deal with Spain. Spain does want Gibraltar back, and sometimes does play games regarding the border, but, for the most part, relations are cordial, even if they are not warm, thanks to the EU acting as a constraint on Spain.
Also, the whole issue of Gibraltar isn't really an EU matter to resolve. It's a bilateral issue between Spain and the UK, so trying to somehow say that this is all the EU's responsibility does not accurate represent the reality of the situation.
For more information, take a look at this:
What does Gibraltar think about Brexit? - BBC News. Gibraltar wants the UK to remain in the EU as it's so strongly integrated with the continent.
As for being outvoted, that's democracy for you. What's the problem with that? Are you going to argue that every time a vote does not go the way in which you want at Westminster or the Northern Ireland assembly that this is wrong too?
And they are certainly not interested in meaningful reforms. Like I said before, Cameron went begging to them for scraps and to be perfectly honest, they pissed in his face. The evil Blair threw away most of our rebate in exchange for a vague promise of reform for the CAP which is yet to happen. And the chance to be a big highly paid player in the EU hierarchy no doubt. We're outvoted the most in the decision making despite all the money we fork over. And it's still not enough because they're always asking for more. Why the hell are we paying for this abuse?
What's your evidence for claiming that the EU is not interested in meaningful reform? What is meaningful reform anyway? It's a very subjective term.
He didn't go begging, but yes they were annoyed with him trying to get a deal at a time when the EU faced, and still faces, much bigger issues than the UK. The distraction of sorting out that deal when the euro and immigration issues needed to be the focus of attention was, understandably, very frustrating for other EU leaders, but they still sat down and negotiated for hours, including over night. That says a lot about the strengths of the EU, and the fact that while they might find the behaviour of the UK frustrating, they want us to stay.
Blair did not throw away most of the UK's rebate. The UK still receive £5 billion rebate every year, and do you know who pays for that? The other EU member states.
CAP needs to be reformed, and many member states agree with the UK on this. The major problem there is France, which keeps blocking CAP reform, but small steps have been made over time. The only way to keep making progress on this is to remain in the EU and fight for change. The NFU in this country backs remaining in the EU, because without EU subsidies the UK farming industry would be in serious trouble.
Are you arguing that money should buy votes? That would be more than a little corrupt don't you think
?
In terms of contributions, Germany is, by far, the largest contributor to the EU, and, depending on which statistics you look at, France pays more than the UK does too. As the fifth largest economy though, it is right that the UK is in the top three contributors to the EU.
The EU budget has been getting smaller every year for the last few years, thanks to the UK leading the agenda on cutting the EU budget. That rather flies in the face of the claim that the UK is never listened to. In addition, what the Commission asks for in terms of a budget has to be agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and this also often ends up reducing the size of the EU budget.
I also think the EU is a bloated monstrosity of an organization. Justify to me the need to move the parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg every month. Why?
You might think that, but it's factually incorrect. The EU's bureaucracy (civil service) is smaller than that of one UK government department. The only reason you think it's big is because certain media sources portray it that way to suit their own ends. It's a very lean organisation in lots of ways, so don't let the media fool you
.
The MEPs would rather that they didn't move from Brussels to Strasbourg, and it would make much more sense to stay in Brussels. The reason why they moe comes down to French prestige and history. Again, the only way to sort this out is to keep pressing for reform, not to pull up the drawbridge.
I'm voting to leave. Things will be tough if we do, but it'll be worth it in the end. The EU won't survive without us. They need us far more than we need them. Who else will pay the bills? Plus, the eventual goal of the EU is to fully assimilate its members in their entirety. Ever closer union after all. And I don't want that. Since they won't take no as an answer in regards to this, it's time to leave.
The EU would survive without the UK.
The EU budget is far more complex that you are claiming and to imply that the UK pays all the bills is completely inaccurate and not supported at all by the facts.
The EU is not the Borg from Star Trek
. Ever closer union does not mean assimilation.
Very briefly, TTIP threatens the NHS, one of the cornerstones of our country. That's the deal breaker for me.
See the Full Fact link that Rummy gave you. It's very good and highlights just how much uncertainty you would be basing this decision on. Negotiations are ongoing, nothing has been set in stone, and the only way to influence the outcome is to stay at the negotiating table and to be involved. The alternative, as I have discussed in previous posts with you is even more privatisation via a lengthy and delayed deal with the US, or national government will privatise the NHS in some areas itself, both Labour and the Conservatives have already done so, in fact. On that basis, I would argue that the NHS is no safer left in the hands of national government.
The evidence presented shows that all the reasons you are arguing to leave the EU are not supported by the facts or by the majority of the evidence. I really find it very difficult to understand how you can take a decision to leave when the points you're making are not representative of the reality of the situations. In a referendum of such immense significance, decisions must be taken by the head (i.e. fact and evidence based), not the heart (emotion based).
