Credit Rating

[ajb]

Hmm, some interesting points discussed here.

From my point of view the decision, to vote to leave the EU, was simple. I voted in the 1975 referendum on EEC continuing our membership. I thought it was a good idea then and I still think the same way. Note EEC not EU. I do not think that a superstate, which is where the EU is heading is a good idea and I cannot accept the UK's sovereignty being devolved elsewhere to any degree. I am very sad that we moved away from the EEC, a trading community, and allowed ourselves to be drawn into an overarching superstate. I also think that it was solely down to the fact that a referendum on joining the Euro would have been needed, and that referendum would have blocked it, that we still have Sterling. Where all of this will now end is anyone's guess.

Marijn's point about the amount paid by the Netherlands versus the UK suggests that their negotiating skills may not be as keen as ours

Andy

[SkippyBing]

Personally I thought it was getting out of hand when it turned out the UK Government had to go and ask permission from the EU to remove VAT from tampons.

[Paul K]

Get outta there!

[Nigel H-J]

of the

I don't understand this Nigel, in the same way that you got to vote for your local MP at Westminster you also had the right to vote for your MEP in Brussels. The rest of the bureaucracy in Brussels is not directly elected or appointed in the same way that you didn't elect the House of Lords, the British Supreme Court, or the civil service etc. I voted for my MEP here as is my right as a European citizen her name is Alessia Mosca. How many know the name of their MEP?

Hi Jon, I can understand your reply however somewhere along the line I think you may have missed my point. The decisions that are made through the EU are done in a number of steps and finally have to be agreed by the Council of Ministers, a committee of government ministers from the different member countries and also along with the European Parliament where it passes most EU laws however, the British Government failed to block a single EU measure from 2010 to 2015.

Also Britains 'No' vote has now not stopped a measure put to a vote from going through for at least 19 years. This analysis covered votes at EU Council of Ministers from member state governments who hammer out rules and regulations across all areas of policy.

In decisive votes where regulations and decisions were being finally adopted between 2010 and 2015, the UK voted No 23 times and abstained 18 times, in each case the measures went through anyway often to the cost of the British Taxpayer, billions of pounds.

Now we are out hopefully we will be successful in continuing to trade with the EU without incurring financial penalties.

Finally, when we joined it was a membership purely based on trading with each other known as the Common Market, had it stayed that way then I believe we would all have benefitted greatly but it didn't, politics finally got in the way and ever since we have had far too many laws made and passed by other countries when our MEP's had tried unsuccessfully to veto some very unfair ones.

Kind regards
Nigel.

[Jon.M]

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your well argued response to my earlier post. I actually agree that the EU has expanded much too rapidly and has moved towards "ever closer union" too quickly.

The only part of your original post that I objected to was the statement about "unseen, unelected officials", as the European Parliament is elected by the citizens of the member states. The Commission is made up of one commissioner from each of the 28 states appointed by the European Council (whose members are appointed by the member states) and approved by the parliament.
In contrast the UK does not have a written constitution, some members of the upper house of parliament are there by right of birth, and others because they believe in God. Most of the business of government is done by unseen, unelected officials in government ministries and departments. The head of state owes her place to being the daughter of the last head of state.
I'm not saying that these are necessarily bad things just that much of the British government, and probably every government, is largely unelected and unseen.

The so called veto is very limited and can only be used to block legislation in certain areas, at least if any one country wants to block legislation favoured by the other 27 member states. This is an old article from 1994, as you can see by it referring to the 12 member states, explaining the veto and it's limitations: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 38345.html
If any thing Britain's power of veto has been further reduced since this article by the Lisbon Treaty, which the UK government signed, and by the expansion of the EU to 28 states, which the UK government agreed to. It can't be compared to the power of veto held by the members of the UN security council which has so often been used to render the UN impotent in the face of one or other of the security council members.

The world has changed greatly in the last fifty years. The British Empire had already gone and most of the more important members of the commonwealth now have little incentive to favour the UK over any other potential trading partner. The most important businesses are now global in outlook and will not favour the UK over larger or more profitable markets. They will base their factories/offices wherever they can get the best deal. I don't like this but it is the way the world works today.

Had I been able to vote I would have voted remain, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with many of the arguments against the EU. I just believe that leaving will greatly reduce the UK's influence both in Europe and globally. The candidates to replace David Cameron all claim to be in favour of Brexit whilst trying to delay actually triggering article 50 as long as possible.

Edit: I've just seen Andrea Leadsom wants to start Brexit ASAP.

As it happens I was denied a vote.

Best wishes,
Jon