EU - in or out?

Second that, Gilly

The chapter on the voting system and the absence of a veto in many areas is interesting.

The cost of the whole EU parliament traipsing to Strasbourg once a month for its sessions is staggering. For some reason one of the many treaties agreed to this and the process for reversing it is complex - it cannot be voted on; it would need a whole new treaty. All the hundreds of MEPs have to travel from Brussels to Strasbourg; 100 lorries carry the paperwork; permanent staff and buildings have to be funded in both venues. The cost runs into billions of euros. But it stays, as everyone knows that France would veto its removal. Now that is truly barmy; and a huge waste of money.

There are also several new buildings going up to accommodate the parliament, and a museum and much more. All flashy highly expensive buildings.

The section on corruption and "vanishing" funds is a bit scary too - there is a huge department that does nothing but chase up these frauds - particularly prevalent in Sicily it seems - now, I wonder where that money is going!!?

Even if there are cogent reasons for staying in, some of this expensive nonsense has to be re-negotiated and sorted out.

Unless there is reform and a tighter control on spending, then there will be a lot of people who will vote out.

Does it mention Farage in the section on corruption and vanishing funds?

Wasn't it only 36% turnout for the EU vote, rosequartz?
Most people do not care.

So what if say 35% turn out and 18% of them vote out? Is a clause proposed about minimum turnout?

A bit like the Welsh Assembly vote then.

Tired now, can't think

What I said, rose, is that most people do not care.
Cameron could make it dependent on a certain turnout. After all, that's what unions do.

I'm undecided.

I like the idea of closer links with, and more co-operation between, countries - but in some ways I think the whole concept is rather like a "rich boys club" in that it excludes and disadvantages large parts of the developing world.

I think there are many benefits, including more regulation of various safety and quality standards and workers' rights. The thought of a government like our present one having a completely free rein over such matters worries me.

But I do feel that it's an uphill task to even get people interested in domestic politics and to keep track of what's happening here. Most of what happens in the EU is a complete mystery to a large proportion of the population (including myself). It seems that talks are held (such as the TTIP talks) and decisions made without the general population of any of the EU countries being made aware of what is going on. Also, it's such a huge organisation that it seems to me that, unless constantly scrutinised, there is greater potential for money-wasting and corruption.

Although there is more of a tendency for right wingers to favour leaving the EU, there are also many left wingers who want to get out. Tony Benn - who was very committed to improving conditions for people everywhere and who could certainly never have been described as a "Little Englander" - was not in favour of our membership of the EU, seeing it as yet another layer of largely unaccountable and undemocratic control.

jendurham, you say "Wasn't it only 36% turnout for the EU vote? Most people do not care"

True. But you can bet your life that that 36% - who can't be bothered to try to understand anything about it - will be quick to turn out and vote to leave. That is the the nature of the beast.

We need to stay in a David Cameron version of the EU. Or as close as possible to it. Give DC a chance. He has already shown he can shake 'em up.

I got that wrong. (diet brain plus too early).

I meant the ones who didn't bother to vote in the EU election would turn out for lthis.

Tired brain last night, I meant if 51% of that 35% vote no, which could result in about 18% of the population voting to take us out. Scary thought.
But I hope you know what I meant and a mathemetician could work it out more precisely.

Good post, Eloethan.

I for one have very little idea about what is going on in the EU until something happens which has repercussions for the UK. It just seems to me too cumbersome and difficult to weld together such diverse nations and to administer an ever-growing group of member nations. It started off with good intentions and has grow'd like Topsy.

'Cameron could make it dependent on a certain turnout. After all, that's what unions do.' Do they, durhamjen?

Why is it then that the NUT are set to walk out on Thursday, backed by three other public sector unions? The NUT’s action alone will cause disruption to huge numbers of parents and cost kids a day of education, all on the basis of a ballot held two years ago with a turnout of only 27%.

How many of that 27% voted yes I wonder? Democracy in action (?)
Ps do not dare take your child out of school for an unauthorised holiday - you will be fined! Where does the money from fines go incidentally? Back into the school budget?

I think I heard something about a minimum turnout clause re the EU referendum.

The lack of interest in the EU is very worrying when such huge quantities if cash are poured into it. Control over the use of those funds appears to be somewhat lax.

And this is why I am studying this book, as I feel so ignorant about it all.

Out out out..... I think. But I feel that we need more information about exactly how the EU works for us. A series of television programmes, not hosted by politicians, is vital before the referendum.

What's the book Mishap? I should be reading it too.

That's what I feel Henetha. How will people be able to decide on such a complex issue without proper analysis of how the EU works, what benefits and what disadvantages there are, discussion as to how it could be made more accountable, etc., etc. And I don't think we should only focus on what we can get out of it - if we are part of a group, surely we should consider how standards can be improved for everybody in that group.

It seems to me that if there is a referendum people will be voting on "gut feeling" rather than on any real knowledge of these matters and of the implications for remaining in or leaving the EU.

I don't see Cameron's recent performance has been a great success. Most of the other members were pretty unimpressed, knowing that it was a fairly pointless way of "grandstanding" for the benefit of the Euro-sceptics in his own party.

Little Englander........ Yes, and proud of it. But how many of you have visited nearly every country in Europe, I have. Never got as far as Finland.
Albania was interesting!
To me, it's only people who feel that they need the 'protection' of a club that are afraid to go out on their own. I don't need an antiquated museum ( Nigel Ferages words ) to lead me. I'm strong enough on my own and I like to think my country is.

Yes we do have to concentrate on what we can get out of it. Of course we do. No room for sentiment in the world of a country's economy. We need to look after our own.

The book is called "Au Revoir Europe: What if Britain left the EU" - by David Charter. It's quite heavy going!

Thanks mishap

I like the idea of Europe co-operating over all sorts of things, but what does worry me and I think that this is the biggest beef with most people is that democracy seems to be in very short supply and without that the European Governing body does not really have any legitimacy and this will eventually be its downfall unless they change. One of the biggest problems for me is Germany's ability to call the shots, not Germany in particular but any country having too much say seems not in the spirit of the original Treatise.

However I don't think at the moment that that would encourage me to vote No to Europe - I would like to think that there are channels through which the voters could make our worries clear, and to promote change.
Our politicians constantly make a dogs dinner of trying to change things and are inclined to grandstand for those at home, so I have little faith in them.