Friday, 18 September 2015

Europe - in or out?

There has been a lot of debate in the UK regarding our EU membership,  and there is to be an in-out referendum on the subject by the end of 2017 giving the UK populace a chance to voice their opinion once and for all.

Of course, as expected, there have been scare prophecies from all quarters. Stories which tell of disaster if we stay in, and likewise of disaster if we leave.

But it has been rather encouraging that over recent months more high profile remarks have been in favour of the UK leaving the European Community, one of which is Boris Johnson the Mayor of London with a post on Facebook on the 22nd June 2015 stating the following:

' Let us look first at Britain, and the negative side of the ledger: the sacrifice of political independence. It is considerable. We have given up national determination over an amazing range of policy areas, from the hours worked by junior doctors to the right to strike international free trade deals; from levels of indirect tax to the composition of our sausages.
It has been recently estimated by the parliamentary authorities that about 65 per cent of all legislation passing through Westminster either originates in or is heavily influenced by Brussels.
I happen to think that this is not, in itself, especially healthy for democracy. The main reason why Ukip became so potent and so electorally dangerous was that when people wondered vaguely what their government could do about levels of EU immigration, they were amazed to discover that the answer was – nothing. That basic power, to decide who you were going to allow to settle in your country, had been given away.
Over decades, British politicians had given away powers that weren’t strictly theirs to give. They belonged to the people; and when the people asked for them back, they were told that the heirlooms were now locked in the silver cabinet in Brussels.
It was that sense of a loss of control that caused voters such fury – even people who were actually quite willing to be persuaded of the benefits of immigration. That is why Ukip got 14 per cent in the polls.'


The general public does not understand the intricacies of the debate but they do see the effects. Bearing in mind the bias of most of our newspapers, we see ridiculous rules being implemented which everyone can see do not help towards our way of life or the reputation of the European community. They only create a reason for people to point the finger of ridicule.
If the EU collapses they only have themselves to blame. Looking in from the outside it seems that there are a large number of people who are having to prove their positions in Brussels.

It seems to me that the UK would survive if separate from the EU.
Yes there are companies that have built their businesses around the EU structure which will probably suffer, and some may even go bankrupt as the EU market dries up, but I would ask the question, why is it that it is assumed that if we are not in the EU we cannot trade with the EU countries? And, of course, we can rebuild our links with the countries we were trading with in the years prior to us joining the EU.

Then there's the cost.
Fullfact.com website states that the UK paid £20 billion in 2012, accounting for discounts of £8 billion we are finding £12 billion a year! This equates roughly to £33 million a day!
How can this be justified at a time when the UK is experiencing cut backs in every area?

The latest situation with the mass of immigrants flooding Europe cannot help in influencing the public to remain united with Europe, not because of what the EU has done in this situation, but because of what the EU has not done. Allowing the immigrant situation to get completely out of control with no leadership whatsoever can only damage people's opinion of the EU, a fact that will be remembered in 2017.

I will be interested to see what the country decides, but I know that I will be voting for our country to take the sensible decision and come out of the EU and live up to the name of Great Britain once again.