If Britain do leave the EU, would you move to the UK?

Gallobhai

Just wanted to start a thread to see what the consensus would be on boards. If anyone has any reasons why they would stay, or emmigrate, please share.

WanabeOlympian

Norway would be better and is already a non EU country... and has a superior, wealthier and more successful economy/society ;-)

super_furry

Nope. Can't see a single reason why them not being in the EU would make it a more desirable place to live.

who_me

Hmmm. I'm not sure they're thinking about leaving the EU in order to get more non-national flooding into the country...

seamus

As super_furry says, I can't see why not being in the EU suddenly makes the UK a more desirable place to live.

If not living in the EU was a major pull factor for me, there are plenty of places I can go.

FreudianSlippers

+1 to the above. I don't even understand the premise of this thread.

Gallobhai

You could visit home regularly from Derry, Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, London, Manchester etc. inexpensively in under an hour. Also there is the English language and large Irish populations in the cities of Great Britain. That is why I thought it might appeal if you felt strongly about leaving the European Union.

mike65

Not many Irish do feel strongly about leaving the EU as far as I can tell.

djpbarry

Gallobhai wrote: »

Just wanted to start a thread to see what the consensus would be on boards. If anyone has any reasons why they would stay, or emmigrate, please share.

I would likely emigrate from the UK in the event of secession from the EU, as it is likely that my job would disappear.

The Corinthian

I really don't see much logic in this question. Is it that one would want to move to a non EU-nation so as to escape the 'tyranny' of Brussels?

Even if it was something as silly as that, the UK will, at the very least, go through some serious transitional pains upon any exit so if one were to move there, you'd probably want to wait until that's done with. Otherwise, the World is full of non-EU nations to move to.

All assuming it's so important to someone that they don't live in the EU, although I'm still at a loss why this would be the case.

murphaph

I assume the UK would assume a position within the EEA like Norway which (AFAIK) brings many of the responsibilities of full EU membership but with absolutely no voting rights on any of it. I cannot imagine the UK would take up a position outside the EEA, having to pay import tariffs and so on.

I really think the EU would be much the poorer without the UK in there helping to keep things sane and the country that needs the UK in more than any other is Germany. Perhaps 5 years ago the German public might have just dismissed all this as typical John Bull stuff but the carry on of the Greeks will make the Germans value "responsible" nations all that bit more.

An EU made up of Germany and a load of fiscally irresponsible southern states is doomed to fail. The UK leaving completely would (IMO) lead to a more or less complete break up of the EU.

noodler

WanabeOlympian wrote: »

Norway would be better and is already a non EU country... and has a superior, wealthier and more successful economy/society ;-)

And huge oil reserves...

Gallobhai

There is a deluded naivety to the sentiment and dismissive tones in some of these replies so I will give more than a geographical reason for "why the UK" this time:

Under the EU Ireland has lost natural gas, oil, farming, fishing, civil and constitutional rights, lost economic sovereignty, does not write the majority of its own laws, has had to adapt policies from overseas that hurt local communities without sufficient representation, is suffering crippling austerity because of European institutions which created and distributed massive debts, has had to sell/privatize or underfund national bodies, is loosing the younger generation to yet another exodus, and has had its democratic system made a mockery of by the European Parliament. These are unelected offshore technocrats who do not represent the people of the member states but, it seems to me, are in the pockets of certain interests. Of course there are advantages to being in the EU but what will be asked to sacrifice as citizens next?

Remember that Britain is in the commonwealth of over 50 sovereign states including Australia and Canada and is the home of financial powerhouse 'City of London'. Upon Britain leaving it is more likely the Eurozone would suffer greater than Britain, maybe even collapse.
My home is 20 miles from the border, if it was looking like a 'out' result to the 'in or out' question I would currently lean toward moving across the border into Northern Ireland.

To address that "EU Tyranny is silly" I would say that; in a technological age of corporate cronyism where one body owns many diverse industries and a few bodies can dominate absolutely, tyranny will not appear in a Hitler or a Mao figure. It will creep in subtly by policy and from within bureaucracy and controlled media coverage, and you will hear it praised by the people around you, repeating what they heard from their bought off leaders and media figures. You may never see the tyrants but they will indeed clandestinely pull the strings for their own personal gain at your expense. That is how I would interpret the tyranny of our time, and why we are asked to vote on referenda numerous times until we 'get it right'.

The Corinthian

murphaph wrote: »

An EU made up of Germany and a load of fiscally irresponsible southern states is doomed to fail. The UK leaving completely would (IMO) lead to a more or less complete break up of the EU.

The EU isn't made up of Germany and a load of fiscally irresponsible southern states though.

Even if you were to suggest that all the PIIGS nations were irresponsible, then that's only five out of 27 (or 26 if the UK leaves) or 27% of the total population of the EU (or 30% if the UK leaves). So hardly just "Germany and a load of fiscally irresponsible southern states".

Secondly, you have to ask how irresponsible some of these states were?

Greece and Ireland, certainly were - in different ways - irresponsible. Portugal I can't say, but it's questionable that they were any more irresponsible than anyone else.

Certainly with Spain, it's questionable that she could be called irresponsible; at a federal level, certain regions certainly were, so there's a case for it, but you can hardly put her in the same bracket as Greece.

And Italy actually wasn't irresponsible - just unlucky. Italy had one of the most responsible (conservative) banking sectors in Europe and Italian debt was accrued decades ago, and had remained stable since. Italy's problem was low GDP, which in turn affected her ability to service this debt when rates increased internationally and so spooked the markets accordingly - indeed, if you look at the fundamentals between Germany and Italy, the only difference is that Germany has about 2% higher GDP (even her debt is higher than Italy's).

lazlo

Gallobhai wrote: »

There is a deluded naivety to the sentiment and dismissive tones in some of these replies so I will give more than a geographical reason for "why the UK" this time:

Under the EU Ireland has lost natural gas, oil, farming, fishing, civil and constitutional rights, lost economic sovereignty, does not write the majority of its own laws, has had to adapt policies from overseas that hurt local communities without sufficient representation, is suffering crippling austerity because of European institutions which created and distributed massive debts, has had to sell/privatize or underfund national bodies, is loosing the younger generation to yet another exodus, and has had its democratic system made a mockery of by the European Parliament. These are unelected offshore technocrats who do not represent the people of the member states but, it seems to me, are in the pockets of certain interests. Of course there are advantages to being in the EU but what will be asked to sacrifice as citizens next?

Remember that Britain is in the commonwealth of over 50 sovereign states including Australia and Canada and is the home of financial powerhouse 'City of London'. Upon Britain leaving it is more likely the Eurozone would suffer greater than Britain, maybe even collapse.
My home is 20 miles from the border, if it was looking like a 'out' result to the 'in or out' question I would currently lean toward moving across the border into Northern Ireland.

To address that "EU Tyranny is silly" I would say that; in a technological age of corporate cronyism where one body owns many diverse industries and a few bodies can dominate absolutely, tyranny will not appear in a Hitler or a Mao figure. It will creep in subtly by policy and from within bureaucracy and controlled media coverage, and you will hear it praised by the people around you, repeating what they heard from their bought off leaders and media figures. You may never see the tyrants but they will indeed clandestinely pull the strings for their own personal gain at your expense. That is how I would interpret the tyranny of our time, and why we are asked to vote on referenda numerous times until we 'get it right'.

Hear Hear!

FreudianSlippers

lazlo wrote: »

Hear Hear!

A fantastic reaponse adding no substance to a ridiculous bunch of claims which are entirely baseless and unsupported.

murphaph

The Corinthian wrote: »

The EU isn't made up of Germany and a load of fiscally irresponsible southern states though.

Even if you were to suggest that all the PIIGS nations were irresponsible, then that's only five out of 27 (or 26 if the UK leaves) or 27% of the total population of the EU (or 30% if the UK leaves). So hardly just "Germany and a load of fiscally irresponsible southern states".

Secondly, you have to ask how irresponsible some of these states were?

Greece and Ireland, certainly were - in different ways - irresponsible. Portugal I can't say, but it's questionable that they were any more irresponsible than anyone else.

Certainly with Spain, it's questionable that she could be called irresponsible; at a federal level, certain regions certainly were, so there's a case for it, but you can hardly put her in the same bracket as Greece.

And Italy actually wasn't irresponsible - just unlucky. Italy had one of the most responsible (conservative) banking sectors in Europe and Italian debt was accrued decades ago, and had remained stable since. Italy's problem was low GDP, which in turn affected her ability to service this debt when rates increased internationally and so spooked the markets accordingly - indeed, if you look at the fundamentals between Germany and Italy, the only difference is that Germany has about 2% higher GDP (even her debt is higher than Italy's).

My comment was a little flippant, but if the UK were to unilaterally withdraw (which i hope they don't) I could see Denmark and possibly Finland following suit.

In the former Eastern Bloc I can see Hungary (and possibly the Czech Republic) walking away from further EU integration given their recent voting practices.

The UK leaving could be the finger being pulled out of the dyke was my point. The Germans are currently "repatriating" EU nationals who have moved to Germany and begun claiming benefits after not working here or only working briefly here. Included in these EU nationals are Brits and Irish who have seen their benefits suspended, so I believe Germany would be on the same wavelength as Cameron wrt. many of these issues and deals could be struck there.

The likes of Romania and Bulgaria may not be fiscally irresonsible but they are p!ss poor (and IMO were nowhere near ready for EU membership but anyway...) and an EU made up of a mixture of downright irresponsible states and merely weak states and a handful of disciplined, strong states, won't work. The EU needs the UK in 2013. Before the Nice expansion it may have been tenable for Germany to have the UK leave and for Germany itself to remain in. Now though, I think Germany would have to consider its own long term plans very carefully.

In short, I hope the process leads to an open honest debate about where the EU is headed (when little Ireland voted no, no such debate took place at an EU level, but with the UK it's a different ball game) and that it results in the UK ultimately staying in the club and helping to shape it from within.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

My comment was a little flippant, but if the UK were to unilaterally withdraw (which i hope they don't) I could see Denmark and possibly Finland following suit.

Why? I've only been to Finland once, but I didn't get the impression that they're any more slavishly devoted to Anglophilia than the Danes.

Denmark has its own reasons for being in the EU. Of all the arguments I've heard about the pros and cons of the EU when I've been in Denmark or talking to my Danish family, I don't think I've ever heard the UK mentioned.

Why do you think Denmark and Finland would leave the EU if the UK did?

Unpossible

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? I've only been to Finland once, but I didn't get the impression that they're any more slavishly devoted to Anglophilia than the Danes.

I lived there before the crisis and they didn't have any real problems with the EU as far as I could tell. I've been there a few times since, and while my friends were worried about throwing money at the PIIGS and never getting it back, they weren't going on about leaving the EU. I also don't know any who voted for the True Finns, they all seemed a bit embarrassed by the party getting so many seats.

Despite having its own currency and multiple stimulus packages (which people think are the magic cures to recession) the UK's economy isn't doing great and it looks like they will be reporting negative growth for their last quarter. If it wasn't for the bump from the olympics they would have had a terrible year. I honestly think that the markets being so focused on the Eurozone has taken a lot of pressure off the UK. I think, but I'm not sure, if they vote to leave then they are completely out and will have to ask to be part of the EFTA again and until they rejoin they will be out in the cold. I assume our free trade area with them will still be valid though.

So you would be emigrating to a country that is going to hit a triple dip recession, has left the EU and possibly the EFTA. I'm not sure if the city of london would still be so attracive or how the trade tariffs would affect industry, but I would bet its not good. Still they have the commonwealth which is comprised of 7 first world nations and 47 others.

The fun part is what happens if the people vote to stay in the UK?

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? I've only been to Finland once, but I didn't get the impression that they're any more slavishly devoted to Anglophilia than the Danes.

Denmark has its own reasons for being in the EU. Of all the arguments I've heard about the pros and cons of the EU when I've been in Denmark or talking to my Danish family, I don't think I've ever heard the UK mentioned.

Why do you think Denmark and Finland would leave the EU if the UK did?

The UK is a net contributor to the EU. If the UK were to leave it would necessarily put more financial pressure on the remaining net contributors including Denmark and Finland.

The whole "Greece" thing has caused many previously EU supporting people to question at least parts of it. Previously naive northern Europeans who simply expected everyone to act responsibly (as it is their nature to do) have now learned the hard way that all Europeans are not alike. The cultural differences between the average Greek or Sicilian and the average Scandinavian are simply vast. The Irish tend more towards the "ah shur'n it'll be grand" attitude of the southern European states as we know from our own experience.

I didn't suggest the Danes or Finns would leave the EU "just" because the UK did or because of but rather because of Anglophilia but rather because of the new reality of there being one less (significant) net contributor to the EU.

If it wasn't the UK but Germany or France who was threatening to leave would you be so sure of the EU's ability to remain together?

murphaph

Unpossible wrote: »

I lived there before the crisis and they didn't have any real problems with the EU as far as I could tell. I've been there a few times since, and while my friends were worried about throwing money at the PIIGS and never getting it back, they weren't going on about leaving the EU. I also don't know any who voted for the True Finns, they all seemed a bit embarrassed by the party getting so many seats.

That was before a major net contributor to the EU announced its intention to possibly leave and leave a funding gap for the remaining net contributors to make up.

Your friends may have been embarrassed about the True Finns but somebody was happy to vote for them and that was before the prospect of a major EU net contributor leaving the club surfaced.

As above, if it was France or Germany threatening to leave, would you be so sure of your Finnish mates wanting to remain in the EU without them?

The Corinthian

murphaph wrote: »

The whole "Greece" thing has caused many previously EU supporting people to question at least parts of it.

I agree and, TBH, we should be questioning it.

The problem lies in the conflicting desires for both European integration and national sovereignty. On one side there has been, certainly prior to the crisis, significant support for the Euro, especially after introduction and even following the start of the crisis - both from European populations and business communities. On the other hand, increased centralized control of national economies is generally not welcomed.

Yet, it's very difficult to have the former without some of the latter. In the case of Greece, this didn't even mean actual fiscal control, per say, but simply effective auditing of Greek spending, so that it kept within agreed limits. Limits which, incidentally, were also breached by both France and Germany, prior to 2008.

Many of the problems with the EU are due to this 'compromise' between national sovereignty and European integration; the democratic deficit in Brussels, that is often highlighted by eurosceptics, is precisely as a result of this; EU power rests in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and not in her elected parliament, precisely because the national governments want to keep it that way - as they're the ones who appoint those bureaucrats.

How we deal with this remains to be seen. Either placing a greater weight on sovereignty or integration, or continuing on the present path of ineffective compromise.

I suspect that negotiations with the UK may decide which way the EU goes. If the UK can influence a more trade, less integration deal and remain in the EU, then integration will slow or grind to a halt. If, on the other hand, she overplays her hand and cannot get a deal she can sell to her public - resulting in a referendum win for leaving the EU - then the other EU nations will probably accelerate integration, no longer having the British in the room to veto or otherwise cause dissension.

The Irish tend more towards the "ah shur'n it'll be grand" attitude of the southern European states as we know from our own experience.

In my experience the Irish are somewhere in-between the northern and southern attitudes. We just think we're more southern, in this regard, because we're in the northern half of Europe.

If it wasn't the UK but Germany or France who was threatening to leave would you be so sure of the EU's ability to remain together?

We can hypothesise that any number of nations could spontaneously threaten to leave the EU if we want, doesn't make it any less of a hypothetical situation.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

The UK is a net contributor to the EU. If the UK were to leave it would necessarily put more financial pressure on the remaining net contributors including Denmark and Finland.

Hm. Again, from my own experience, the fact of being a net contributor to the EU doesn't seem to be much of an issue in Denmark. Scandinavian countries are all about wealth redistribution.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hm. Again, from my own experience, the fact of being a net contributor to the EU doesn't seem to be much of an issue in Denmark. Scandinavian countries are all about wealth redistribution.

and thats why the UK leaving the EU will be a good thing, it will give people an option of a modern english speaking country with low taxes to go to

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and thats why the UK leaving the EU will be a good thing, it will give people an option of a modern english speaking country with low taxes to go to

I'm sorry, but I can't see any logical connection between my post and your reply to it.

murphaph

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and thats why the UK leaving the EU will be a good thing, it will give people an option of a modern english speaking country with low taxes to go to

Malta?

djpbarry

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and thats why the UK leaving the EU will be a good thing, it will give people an option of a modern english speaking country with low taxes to go to

Taxes in the UK are low?!? News to me.

FreudianSlippers

Lets not forget that Germany doesn't want a more beurocratic, less democratic and more imposing EU either. Germany sees the EU as imposing frameworks which the Member States full out. This is bluster from Cameron to get back in power - there will likely be an agreement with the Uk

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hm. Again, from my own experience, the fact of being a net contributor to the EU doesn't seem to be much of an issue in Denmark. Scandinavian countries are all about wealth redistribution.

My experience of Danes in Berlin at least is different. I know quite a few here now who have basically fled Denmark's high tax high welfare state as they are disillusioned with what they see as rewarding people who don't want to contribute to the system. So this "happiness" to see their taxes redistributed may not be so deep seated as you believe.

Denmark has seen quite a lot of inward migration of low skilled foreigners and a bit of a brain drain of Danes leaving for Germany (and other places). I wouldn't be so sure that Denmark won't overhaul its own welfare system in the next decade to try to reverse this.

In any case, redistributing wealth "among your own kith and kin" is likely a lot easier to stomach for a nation than sending it to be squandered in some club med country with a different outlook completely.

I am hoping that this business results in a decent open debate, Europe wide, about what sort of EU we want to become and which countries are going to be willing/able to become it. IMO the likes of Greece and Bulgaria will never make it and should never have been admitted as full members. I'd like a strong EU to emerge, made up of countries at the core with similar economic and social outlooks being able to continue with a single currency and (that will require much tighter fiscal integration if it is to work long term) and an outer circle who can trade freely etc. but who have no voting rights when it comes to inner core matters of fiscal integration.

The likes of Denmark and Sweden might actually join a single currency in these circumstances. I doubt they'll ever join one with Greece & Co. as the ever unreliable booby prizes.

who the fug

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Lets not forget that Germany doesn't want a more beurocratic, less democratic and more imposing EU either. Germany sees the EU as imposing frameworks which the Member States full out. This is bluster from Cameron to get back in power - there will likely be an agreement with the Uk

It is welcome, if we can shut the Eurosceptics up for a generation , Labour party will be forced to back this and be interesting to watch the divisions in that party come to the fore, could be a shock for the Islington leadership

hfallada

The EU has made Ireland a country a place that is bareable to live. The EU made the government view women and gay people equal in Ireland. Which without pressure from the EU wouldnt have happened for years.

Also the EU has funded huge amounts of our infastructure which we would have never been able to afford. Also the EU supports Irish agriculture with millions in grants.

Besides the bailout etc. The EU has given Ireland far more benefits than negative

Eric Cartman

djpbarry wrote: »

Taxes in the UK are low?!? News to me.

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Lemming

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Ah, and who covers the UK's running costs? The magical money-printing sky fairy?

Are you talking about the same country that is currently cutting spending, laying off significant numbers of its armed forces, mandating compulsory pension funds, removing itself from public/private partnership funding, and in a spot of bother with its own electorate over how said-same foreign investment is shirking on taxes whilst pleading the poor mouth?

The term "lower taxes" doesn't exist in parliamentary vocabulary right now ...

whatstherush

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Maybe you'll get a penny off a litre of petrol, cause a the net 5bn contribution out of yearly UK budget of 650bn, is not going to make much of a difference.

The Corinthian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Compared to norway and other scandinavian countries, but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment , and not having to pay the eu would cut spending

Oh, FFS...

First of all, unless you are running a serious surplus, you will not be able to afford to cut taxes by any significant amount that may attract foreign investment.

But perhaps the UK could make savings if it didn't have to contribute to the EU financially? Thing is, once you've taken into account what the UK pays, receives and her rebate, it actually works out at under £5 billion - less than she pays out to Northern Ireland to keep the locals from butchering each other.

Or perhaps she could save in that all that EU legislation wouldn't have to be implemented - apparently this is around £28 billion, according to the Eurosceptic Bruges Group. Big saving? Not really; at least not if you want to trade with the EU - even Switzerland and Norway have to comply.

So overall, Britain would make a number of net savings, but at under £5 billion, I don't really see it funding particularly effective corporate tax cuts. It's less than 1% of their annual budget.

Perhaps Britain could pull it off and redefine their economy so that they're better off, but if so, it's going to take quite a long time to do so before they pull that one off, and I wouldn't want to move there until they do.

djpbarry

Eric Cartman wrote: »

...but leaving the eu would enable them to lower taxes to attract foreign investment...

Eh, the UK can do that without leaving the EU?

Rascasse

Lemming wrote: »

The term "lower taxes" doesn't exist in parliamentary vocabulary right now ...

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, FFS...

First of all, unless you are running a serious surplus, you will not be able to afford to cut taxes by any significant amount that may attract foreign investment.

UK has already reduced corporation tax from 26% to 24% and it will be further reduced to 21% in April 2014. I'd call 5% significant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/corporation-tax-rate-cut-autumn-statement

evercloserunion

Rascasse wrote: »

UK has already reduced corporation tax from 26% to 24% and it will be further reduced to 21% in April 2014. I'd call 5% significant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/05/corporation-tax-rate-cut-autumn-statement

Doesn't this just destroy the argument that the UK needs to leave the EU to lower its corporate tax?

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

UK has already reduced corporation tax from 26% to 24% and it will be further reduced to 21% in April 2014. I'd call 5% significant.

Wasn't funded by savings in Europe though, was it?

Rascasse

The Corinthian wrote: »

Wasn't funded by savings in Europe though, was it?

I didn't say it was. I was merely counting your and Lemmings point that corporation taxes can't be cut now when they are.

The Corinthian

Rascasse wrote: »

I didn't say it was. I was merely counting your and Lemmings point that corporation taxes can't be cut now when they are.

Neither of us said that though. We both said that to cut taxes the money has to come from somewhere, be it a surplus, saving or something else.

Additionally, and in relation to this point, we both rejected the claim that savings made upon leaving the EU, would fund this, as it is clear that those savings would not fund much.

The UK may have found, or printed, the money to cut these rates, but it is clear that this money did not come from money saved by not contributing to the EU and that even were that money to be utilized, it would hardly make much difference.

SoulandForm

If Scotland or Wales was to leave the UK and the EU I would move over to them. The UK is not a particularly free place standing on its own and I think it could actually become a worse place outside of it.

The Republic of Ireland should never have joined the EU and I think its a case of a corrupt elite who was always half hearted to say the least about national freedom wanting to be part of an Empire again where they get told what to do as they did under the British that keeps her there.

djpbarry

SoulandForm wrote: »

If Scotland or Wales was to leave the UK and the EU I would move over to them.

Because you want to experience a much lower standard of living?

Unpossible

murphaph wrote: »

That was before a major net contributor to the EU announced its intention to possibly leave and leave a funding gap for the remaining net contributors to make up.

The Finns already pay more per capita than the UK, but the UK are the only ones I've ever heard complaining about paying money to the EU. Of course you're right, with a large net contributor like the UK leaving it will mean either less for the recipiants or more money from the contributors. I would see them having a bigger problem with having to give continual bailouts to other countries and never getting any of it back.
If by 2017 there is no significant economic recovery, if there are more bailouts with no real repayments and if the UK leave and don't go down in flames, remember the UK economy is heading for another recession, then sure I could possibly see them leave the eurozone or the EU.

murphaph wrote: »

Your friends may have been embarrassed about the True Finns but somebody was happy to vote for them and that was before the prospect of a major EU net contributor leaving the club surfaced.

True, at the moment they have about 19% of the seats, I would hope that their odd views on certain topics will mean that won't increase. We will have to see how they do in the next election to see if this means there is a rise in anti-EU sentiment.

murphaph wrote: »

As above, if it was France or Germany threatening to leave, would you be so sure of your Finnish mates wanting to remain in the EU without them?

There is quite a difference between a major eurozone country (and founding member of the EU project) leaving and a country that has done nothing but complain about membership and tries to exclude itself from integration by not joining the eurozone (or schengen). The UK, or Tories more specifically, especially doesn't do itself favours by saying they want to repeal the european laws that protect workers rights and human rights.
To answer your question though, I don't think the EU would survive Germany or France leaving, but then they are more pro-integration and EU so things would have gone really downhill for that to happen anyway.

murphaph wrote: »

My experience of Danes in Berlin at least is different. I know quite a few here now who have basically fled Denmark's high tax high welfare state as they are disillusioned with what they see as rewarding people who don't want to contribute to the system. So this "happiness" to see their taxes redistributed may not be so deep seated as you believe.

My experience of Ex-Pats is that most, if not all, have built up a list of complaints on what their home nations are doing wrong and usually have a list of all the things their new country does right. What matters is what the people back home are voting for.

murphaph wrote: »

In any case, redistributing wealth "among your own kith and kin" is likely a lot easier to stomach for a nation than sending it to be squandered in some club med country with a different outlook completely.

I agree, but would say its not the regular EU contributions that will cause anger, its the constant bailouts and a failure to get the money back that will cause the problems.

murphaph wrote: »

I am hoping that this business results in a decent open debate, Europe wide, about what sort of EU we want to become and which countries are going to be willing/able to become it. IMO the likes of Greece and Bulgaria will never make it and should never have been admitted as full members. I'd like a strong EU to emerge, made up of countries at the core with similar economic and social outlooks being able to continue with a single currency and (that will require much tighter fiscal integration if it is to work long term) and an outer circle who can trade freely etc. but who have no voting rights when it comes to inner core matters of fiscal integration.

I agree. I don't know why more hasn't been made of Greece cooking the books to get in, prehaps there will be focus on it after the crisis.



TL, DR: there isn't really any sign of Finns leaving now if the UK were to leave in the morning, but 4 more years of recession and more bailouts could do it if the UK leave and end up doing well.

Duggys Housemate

Most of the pro-"leave the EU" posters are not willing to countenance the effects on the British economy of leaving. The associated members who are not full members contribute to the pot - that's the deal, so if UK nationalists want to leave to avoid paying they won't be in that position, they will be like China. All EU tariffs will apply. The vast majority of jobs in the city of London will probably move, and immigrants flee. Scotland may secede. I can't see it being a winner.

It's all moot anyway. If Cameron really wanted a referendum he have called one in this term, not in a fictional next term where he may not even be in government and most certainly will not be in single party government. It's designed to placate some back benchers and cut the legs of the UKIP.

pavb2

It's all moot anyway. If Cameron really wanted a referendum he have called one in this term, not in a fictional next term where he may not even be in government and most certainly will not be in single party government. It's designed to placate some back benchers and cut the legs of the UKIP.

A good summary but what interested me in all the rhetoric and maybe I missed it but did Cameron actually state what his position was on this?

Unpossible

pavb2 wrote: »

A good summary but what interested me in all the rhetoric and maybe I missed it but did Cameron actually state what his position was on this?

He stated he is for the UK to stay in the EU, but with treaty changes.

Netizen101

Gallobhai wrote: »

To address that "EU Tyranny is silly" I would say that; in a technological age of corporate cronyism where one body owns many diverse industries and a few bodies can dominate absolutely, tyranny will not appear in a Hitler or a Mao figure. It will creep in subtly by policy and from within bureaucracy and controlled media coverage, and you will hear it praised by the people around you, repeating what they heard from their bought off leaders and media figures. You may never see the tyrants but they will indeed clandestinely pull the strings for their own personal gain at your expense. That is how I would interpret the tyranny of our time, and why we are asked to vote on referenda numerous times until we 'get it right'.

Agreed, frankly I think you have your thumb on the Zeitgeist, this is the nature of the world at present, anyone to whom this is not apparent, particularly in Ireland, is deluded. We had our democracy stolen out from under us, all the while the "Irish" media pundits lauded the machinations of the corporativist dictatorship. It happened right before our eyes, and on our watch. We twigged that something was wrong the first time, yet still we were able to deftly apply the appropriate 'double think' until we could "get it right".

[MOD]Please don't use unrelated threads to promote off-topic petitions.[/MOD]

Duggys Housemate

Netizen101 wrote: »

Agreed, frankly I think you have your thumb on the Zeitgeist, this is the nature of the world at present, anyone to whom this is not apparent, particularly in Ireland, is deluded. We had our democracy stolen out from under us, all the while the "Irish" media pundits lauded the machinations of the corporativist dictatorship. It happened right before our eyes, and on our watch. We twigged that something was wrong the first time, yet still we were able to deftly apply the appropriate 'double think' until we could "get it right".

Who's the "they"? Is it the EU, or the American corporations. If the latter, isn't it the EU which needs to regulate - quite the opposite from the general theme of this thread.

djpbarry

Netizen101 wrote: »

Agreed, frankly I think you have your thumb on the Zeitgeist, this is the nature of the world at present, anyone to whom this is not apparent, particularly in Ireland, is deluded. We had our democracy stolen out from under us...

Asking a question twice constitutes "stealing democracy"?

The Corinthian

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Who's the "they"?

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