Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At long last, the phony war is over - the defining issue of Britain's future is upon us.

Should we jump aboard the EU train, which is possibly heading towards a united states of Europe, our should the UK cut loose and forge a new role for ourselves in the wider world?

So many questions...

I think Europe should be reformed to be more democratic and reduce the autocratic power of the commission, etc, and if this happened we should stay in. It's impossible to say if we could affect this issue more by getting out or staying in, since it hasn't been discussed at all.

The concessions that Cameron has negotiated over the past few days are trivial matters intended to give Cameron something to appease Little Britons so he can argue for the Stay In side of the referendum.

Therefore the referendum will not address the major issue, so I see no reason to vote yes or no. It isn't a "don't know" from me so much as a "there is no substantive point that can be resolved". Nonetheless, the future of the country will still be strongly affected by whichever way the vote goes.

Personally, I'm glad this is going to be over one way or another. This had been rumbling on since the 1970s and has been a running sore for the Conservatives since then.

I hope that unlike the Scottish independence referendum, we'll have a mature debate from both sides, on Britain's future. Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.

Will be interesting to see how the Conservative party reacts. The cabinet is Pro-EU but the grassroots members positively detest the EU. Could be a civil war in the Tory party.

And what of Boris? IMO, anybody who is hedging their bets on such a major issue was never really a politician of principal. I expect him to fall into line behind Cameron.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think Europe should be reformed to be more democratic and reduce the autocratic power of the commission, etc, and if this happened we should stay in. It's impossible to say if we could affect this issue more by getting out or staying in, since it hasn't been discussed at all.

The concessions that Cameron has negotiated over the past few days are trivial matters intended to give Cameron something to appease Little Britons so he can argue for the Stay In side of the referendum.

Therefore the referendum will not address the major issue, so I see no reason to vote yes or no. It isn't a "don't know" from me so much as a "there is no substantive point that can be resolved". Nonetheless, the future of the country will still be strongly affected by whichever way the vote goes.

I think Cameron's 'negotiations' have been a carefully managed PR sham from day one.

As somebody once said, he asked for nothing, and he got half of that!

Kilkrazy, if this is all we can get when we're threatening to leave, we will never change anything if we vote to stay in.

To be honest, I have no idea. There's been so much spin one way or another, politicians saying one thing, newspapers saying another thing, other politicians on the other sides saying a third and fourth thing.

It's like uh... I don't feel genuinely informed enough to make an opinion one way or another. Lots of spin, little information.

The 'Star Trek' future, is one of the things I actually kind of want to hope for and believe in. And a big part of that is working together. So, the idea of leaving an "European Union" feels really bad/sad to me. - It feels like taking steps backwards to a 'darker' world.

And yet, nothing I've ever read has ever shaken away my gut instinct that the EU, the way it is right now, the way it functions, is just a gigantic messes of messes, that's only going to get worse. In which case, maybe it is best for the UK to leave, find itself, work out its own destiny alone. - Maybe the significance of this might spur the EU into fixing itself? - Particularly with the (in my limited, lack of informed opinion) lack of UK(IP?) delegates playing obstruction.

At the minute I dont know.

I would lean towards exit but only because I feel money form all meber states is being used to prop up some absurd systems.


I do not think that real change is possible, even within the EU and our current political parties aren't really interested in having a proper debate or fight. Cameron is pro Euro with his watered down 'I tried' deals. Labour would be pro euro without exception and other parties lean that way.

I don't know at the moment. As it's such a major decision, I intend to be as informed as possible when voting. So I'll do some fairly extensive research and investigation in the weeks beforehand and decide then. All the spin around Cameron at the moment is quite irritating and offputting at the moment though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.

So pretty much business as usual, then?

I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.

I also don't see the disadvantage to leaving. We can still negotiate a trade deal with anyone in Europe we want, they're not likely to refuse one, we can still keep open borders if we want to, but we can do it without our democracy being potentially undermined.

I can't honestly say I'm that fussed about the nitty gritty details of it. Either way, it's hardly going to change the way of life for most people in the country, so it's a matter of principle rather than gain/loss for me.

I've not made my mind up. I feel that a lot of workers rights are only held in check by Europe, the Conservatives would aid business owners and screw over workers now that unions are so weakened. Trying to make us 'more competitive' after leaving the EU would be their excuse for screwing us over pay and working hours and other conditions. But Europe also choke us with other legislation that seems to serve exploitarive criminals rather than really protect our rights.

The obsession with open borders is an issue too, Merkel and others keep pushing it as well as letting unprocessed migrants flood in instead of insisting that correct process for asylum claims is adhered to, that being that applications are made at the first safe country. Yet thousands are still illegally piling up in Calais that the French and no other European country has processed. Which brings is onto another point, why does the UK find it so hard to renegotiate rules and get bashed for discrimination when the French passed a burka ban and Germany can suspend asylum rules when they like?

Immigration control won't improve if we leave the EU though. The government wants high immigration because it supplies cheap workers and holds down wages. conservatives especially only do things to help business leaders not workers, that's why there's no living wage introduced.

Economically I've not a clue, and the cost of this should be the biggest issue of all. On one side you have doommongers claiming our country will be economically crippled and shunned by the world. On the other is blind faith that we'll be just fine on our own or even much better off. It's all propaganda on both sides and little evidence that convinces.

I don't think Cameron got squat out of these renegotiations, it's all spin. We're only getting a referendum because he promised us one to win votes. This will be the third referendum offered by Cameron that he has then campaigned against. Whatever happened to politicians offering referendums on things they had some vision to change?

I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
- Blocking financial regulation and legislation (wow, another big surprise)
- Gaining exceptions for Britain (the surprise will literally kill me at this rate)
Whoop dee fething doo. So we got benefit cuts, another chance for Britain to be obstructionist, and yet another exception for the Super Special Crybabies of the EU. Colour me ecstatic.

Nothing about:
- Corporate capture and lobbying within the EU
- Excessive secrecy of EU insitutions
- Lack of accountability and ridiculous benefits for EU workers
- TTIP

And nothing about dealing with the existential problems facing the EU. These are reforms I can get behind, but Cameron went for small minded cuts and protection of special interests, which is hardly surprising.

So while a Brexit would likely be bad for Europe and worse for Ireland, I have to say my patience with Britain in this regard is at an end. Have your vote, and if you leave, I really won't be that sad. The rest of us can get on with the business of dealing with problems together, I hope.

 Compel wrote:
To be honest, I have no idea. There's been so much spin one way or another, politicians saying one thing, newspapers saying another thing, other politicians on the other sides saying a third and fourth thing.

It's like uh... I don't feel genuinely informed enough to make an opinion one way or another. Lots of spin, little information.

The 'Star Trek' future, is one of the things I actually kind of want to hope for and believe in. And a big part of that is working together. So, the idea of leaving an "European Union" feels really bad/sad to me. - It feels like taking steps backwards to a 'darker' world.

And yet, nothing I've ever read has ever shaken away my gut instinct that the EU, the way it is right now, the way it functions, is just a gigantic messes of messes, that's only going to get worse. In which case, maybe it is best for the UK to leave, find itself, work out its own destiny alone. - Maybe the significance of this might spur the EU into fixing itself? - Particularly with the (in my limited, lack of informed opinion) lack of UK(IP?) delegates playing obstruction.

Come on, take that fence out of your rear!

On a serious note, it is a big decision, but there's plenty of time to think about it. I'm hoping that somebody comes up with a balanced website that highlights the pros and cons of both sides. We need quality, unbiased material to help people make a decision.

I have no faith in Cameron, and I do not trust the EU's paltry promises of reform and special exemptions for the UK. Hasn't the parliament threatened to veto any deal we make?

 Ketara wrote:
I don't know at the moment. As it's such a major decision, I intend to be as informed as possible when voting. So I'll do some fairly extensive research and investigation in the weeks beforehand and decide then. All the spin around Cameron at the moment is quite irritating and offputting at the moment though.

As I said earlier, I'm hoping for a good, clean campaign, because there is a strong case for staying, and a strong case for leaving, but I fear we'll get the establishment types (banks and big business) predicting death of the first born if we leave the EU, and the leave camp will probably hit us with 50 million refugees arriving in Britain if we stay in the EU.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I have no faith in Cameron, and I do not trust the EU's paltry promises of reform and special exemptions for the UK. Hasn't the parliament threatened to veto any sea we make?

There is talk that this deal is not even legally binding, and won't be until the referendum result is known. I'm not 100% on that, but that's the music coming out of Brussels from what I can tell.

The likelyhood is you'll take an economic hit for ideological reasons. That's okay, not everything has to be based on economics.

Perhaps you'll come out of that "hit" stronger than before, perhaps not. But you'll no longer be able to blame Brussels for all your problems, so I do wonder who the new whipping boy for your odious press will be. Probably the poor -they're always a good fallback.

From my perspective, a Brexit is a disaster for Ireland. But posters here and elsewhere have made it clear that such considerations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain. (To me, that has been the ugliest part of the debate - plenty of commenters of the Guardian absolutely outraged that "A country like Belgium could have a say on what we, the sixth biggest blah blah in the world, can do!")

Oh, and the deal does need to be approved by parliament - that's democracy lads. People outside Britain are part of Europe too, and these "reforms" effect more than just the UK.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sadly, I fear it'll be a deluge of fear, hype, bull, and dishonesty, and both sides will probably end up fighting each other in the gutter.

So pretty much business as usual, then?

I think I'm firmly on the Out side, purely on a matter of principle; I don't like the idea that someone we didn't elect can tell our democratically elected government (even if I despise the Tories, this is what the people voted for... ish... and I'll respect that) what and what not to do. No, this power hasn't been abused thus far, but it could be, and that bothers me on a fundamental level.

I also don't see the disadvantage to leaving. We can still negotiate a trade deal with anyone in Europe we want, they're not likely to refuse one, we can still keep open borders if we want to, but we can do it without our democracy being potentially undermined.

I can't honestly say I'm that fussed about the nitty gritty details of it. Either way, it's hardly going to change the way of life for most people in the country, so it's a matter of principle rather than gain/loss for me.

If Britain leaves, we can get out seat back at the WTO, but I have no idea if that's worth anything

We'll still be in NATO and Interpol if we leave, and I'm pretty sure the ECJ is not part of the EU?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
The likelyhood is you'll take an economic hit for ideological reasons. That's okay, not everything has to be based on economics.

Perhaps you'll come out of that "hit" stronger than before, perhaps not. But you'll no longer be able to blame Brussels for all your problems, so I do wonder who the new whipping boy for your odious press will be. Probably the poor -they're always a good fallback.

From my perspective, a Brexit is a disaster for Ireland. But posters here and elsewhere have made it clear that such considerations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain. (To me, that has been the ugliest part of the debate - plenty of commenters of the Guardian absolutely outraged that "A country like Belgium could have a say on what we, the sixth biggest blah blah in the world, can do!")

Oh, and the deal does need to be approved by parliament - that's democracy lads. People outside Britain are part of Europe too, and these "reforms" effect more than just the UK.

Why would BREXIT be a disaster for Ireland?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I have no faith in Cameron, and I do not trust the EU's paltry promises of reform and special exemptions for the UK. Hasn't the parliament threatened to veto any sea we make?

There is talk that this deal is not even legally binding, and won't be until the referendum result is known. I'm not 100% on that, but that's the music coming out of Brussels from what I can tell.

 Da Boss wrote:
nsiderations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain.

With all due respect, why do you think that the economic effect on a separate nation should be a factor in another nation's exercise of the right to self-determination/democracy?

Do_I_Not_Like_That: Because you are our biggest trading partners, by far, and whatever happens to your economy will hit ours as well. That, and our trade with you is vital to our economy, and I doubt the EU is going to allow you to trade with it at a favorable rate (nor do I believe it should) compared to what you would get for staying in, which will hit our economy hard.

Separate from that, and often dismissed or forgotten - the Republic/North border is a soft border right now with free movement between it. This is the reason Ireland cannot be in Schengen even though we would like to be.

However, we still have free movement with the rest of the EU. Presumably, if the UK leaves, it will want to firm that border up. That is a huge issue for the peace process, as a soft border was one of the major issues that needed to be hashed out. Otherwise how are you going to control the movement of people into the UK?

And of course, the legislation of the Good Friday Agreement is structured around EU legislation and Human Rights treaties. It is unclear how it would be effected by a Brexit.

Finally, nationalist communities in the North are more comfortable having the EU as an additional oversight on governance given the history of state abuse in the North. There is a real fear that a Brexit could damage the Peace Process and cause a return to violence.

If you do a quick google you can find that lots and lots of Irish politicians, economists and think tanks are really worried at the prospect of a Brexit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
nsiderations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain.

With all due respect, why do you think that the economic effect on a separate nation should be a factor in another nation's exercise of the right to self-determination/democracy?

Solidarity. I'd prefer if we were not separate nations but part of a federal European superstate, as you know. I believe the slide towards narrow national interests is disastrous for Europe.

Edit to add: Though I am angry at what is going on, I do not dispute that you guys have the right to a democratic vote on it, and it is to Cameron's credit that he is allowing one. However you vote, I think it should be respected.

 Da Boss wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
nsiderations are irrelevant as small nations do not matter to Britain.

With all due respect, why do you think that the economic effect on a separate nation should be a factor in another nation's exercise of the right to self-determination/democracy?

Solidarity. I'd prefer if we were not separate nations but part of a federal European superstate, as you know. I believe the slide towards narrow national interests is disastrous for Europe.

Edit to add: Though I am angry at what is going on, I do not dispute that you guys have the right to a democratic vote on it, and it is to Cameron's credit that he is allowing one. However you vote, I think it should be respected.

So...you're saying that Ireland's economy should be a factor in the British consideration of their EU related future, because their decision will affect Ireland's future and they should be concerned for the people who live there? Apologies if I'm misreading this, I'm just having difficulty understanding what you're getting at.

I'm actually googling those Irish articles you mentioned now. Interesting reading.

 Ketara wrote:
I don't know at the moment. As it's such a major decision, I intend to be as informed as possible when voting. So I'll do some fairly extensive research and investigation in the weeks beforehand and decide then. All the spin around Cameron at the moment is quite irritating and offputting at the moment though.

Too right. The signal to noise ratio is crazy.

Yeah, I think how your actions will effect your allies and neighbours should be a consideration. Absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm pretty far along the "break down borders!" line of thinking though - I am hoping for a future for Europe where national identities are part of a solid European whole resulting in closer integration and a more stable future, rather than the slide into competing nationalisms and isolation.

Not a popular stance perhaps, but it is my stance.

 Da Boss wrote:
Yeah, I think how your actions will effect your allies and neighbours should be a consideration. Absolutely. I see nothing wrong with that.

I see. How major a factor do you think it should be in British people's minds? Do you think that even if they didn't want to be in Europe, they should stay there for the good of the Irish people?

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm quite angry that Cameron's demands have been met. I'm quite angry about the nature of his demands, too. The EU needs reform, but apparently what Cameron sees as reform is:
- Benefit cuts (big shock from a Tory there)
- Blocking financial regulation and legislation (wow, another big surprise)
- Gaining exceptions for Britain (the surprise will literally kill me at this rate)
Whoop dee fething doo. So we got benefit cuts, another chance for Britain to be obstructionist, and yet another exception for the Super Special Crybabies of the EU. Colour me ecstatic.

All these are reasonable for the UK to ask for. benefit tourism is a real problem in the UK because of its internal system, its functionally more honest than a lot of systems in the EU. Why do you think people want to come specifically to the UK. Why are there migrant camps in Calais? France is not a bad place to live.

Second the Uk needs exceptions, France and Germany do not. If the French or Germans don't like it, it doesn't get implemented to begin with, or if implemented its not enforced in those countries. Let me give you an example. Back in 2000 there was a foot and mouth breakout in the UK and France. The EU came down heavily in the UK and the government had to take drastic action. In France the infected cattle were shot, burned and buried on the quiet, with no complaint from the EU. In fact 'le JCB' is another term for foot and mouth in France because cases are quietly buried.
Both systems are effective at stopping the disease, but the massive culls demanded by the EU were only demanded of the UK. This was a major blow to the UK livestock industry which took many years to recover from.

 Da Boss wrote:

Nothing about:
- Corporate capture and lobbying within the EU
- Excessive secrecy of EU insitutions
- Lack of accountability and ridiculous benefits for EU workers
- TTIP

Cameron cant fix that, and he knows he cant fix that. But he can opt out of as much of that as possible. Which part-fixes that for the UK.
I doubt anyone could do anything about the internal corruption of the EU. It not in the interest of the people who hold the power to do anything about. National government cant actually order the EU itself to do much, or even apply much pressure. As you say they are corporate and secretive.

 Da Boss wrote:

And nothing about dealing with the existential problems facing the EU. These are reforms I can get behind, but Cameron went for small minded cuts and protection of special interests, which is hardly surprising.

It shouldn't surprise, but its also not a condemnable action. Cameron asked for changes on what he could fix. He has achieved quite a bit actually. It doesn't appear to be much but the perma-opt out from the 'ever increasing union' while remaining in EU is a major concession, and one that federalists are not happy with.
The UK wants to be a full trade partner of the EU from the inside, but to be on the outside with regards to federalism. In fact Cameron's moves could help federalism along bty allowing federalists to cement union while still keeping the Uk in system financially. Non membership of the Euro worked out fine for us, and didnt stop implementation elsewhere. Europe has nothing to fear from the Uk's position.

 Da Boss wrote:

So while a Brexit would likely be bad for Europe and worse for Ireland, I have to say my patience with Britain in this regard is at an end. Have your vote, and if you leave, I really won't be that sad. The rest of us can get on with the business of dealing with problems together, I hope.

Rather naive and impatient. The UK wants a trade partnership, not a federal Europe. Go ahead have your federal Europe, we wont stop you, just leave your whacky laws at the channel. In or out though the reform of clarity in the EU wont happen, and it will only get worse as Europe is bound tighter together. If you think that having us gone will make anything easier you are mistaken, it just means the undemocratic chokehold will progress with less notice.
It should tell you a lot that Camerion is having problems, Merkel backs him, and that should be enough to get things moving. The main opposition to his reforms come from the unelected bureaucrats who want a federal Europe controlled by unelected officials over neutered national puppet governments, and you know this is not tinfoil because these are the real issues you wan't sorted.

Frankly I believe Merkel envies the Uk's position of being able to be half in Europe half out. It will make a lot of difference for us in the longer term.

I think they should think about how being in Europe has lead to a more stable and prosperous relationship between our nations, and how leaving Europe could damage that.

They should reflect on the positive influence Europe had on our historically violent and fraught relationship.

How major a factor? At least as big a factor as something as piddling as Child Benefit for a few thousand people.

And then they should vote. If they still want out, well, that's democracy and we'll all live with the consequences, whatever they are. I have little optimism that this sort of thinking plays in the minds of British voters though, who are pretty nationalistic.

As time has gone on, I've begun to swing round to the POV that I would rather Britain outside of Europe as it is a trojan horse for unregulated finance and neoliberalism and a consistent obstructionist for the goal I want to see achieved (a properly united Europe). So despite my worries for my home country I do wonder and am beginning to believe that it would be better for the Europe I want to see if you guys were on the outside. So you can see how my calculus is not entirely influenced by the circumstances of my home nation, but by the future of the entire Union.

 Da Boss wrote:
Oh, and the deal does need to be approved by parliament - that's democracy lads. People outside Britain are part of Europe too, and these "reforms" effect more than just the UK.

Since you care so much about Democracy, would you agree that one part of the EU making promises of reform to influence a referendum result, then another part of the EU vetoing those promises after the referendum is distinctly undemocratic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm pretty far along the "break down borders!" line of thinking though - I am hoping for a future for Europe where national identities are part of a solid European whole resulting in closer integration and a more stable future, rather than the slide into competing nationalisms and isolation.

Thats been tried for decades, and its been an abject failure.

There's nothing undemocratic about it - how would you propose that the complex interests of 27 nations are best represented? This is no different to a national government proposing a law and then the national parliament getting to vote on it.

And a big part of the failure has been British obstructionism dude. That's my point.

In the end it is up to the british people.

However I belive you guys should stay!

before you state that I am wrong, let me justify my belief.


Argument 1, the old pease reason:

Before the european union was created, europe was world champions in making war left and right. It had throughout the times been almost ordinary to be to a war or to between european nations in ones life time. To world wars within a short while made the nations belive, that the circle of "you did this to us, so when we grow strong we will do that to you" would be never ending unless a better alternative was set in motion. The very idea was that if to nations was having a big trade, the nations would have something where they meet and discussed things before things got out of hand. Giving diplomacy a extra chance. Secondly if the nations would loose more value then that could be gained (loss of this trade), the very reason for war would be less worthwhile.

So far it have worked. There have been no war between to EU nations yet.And It is almost unthinkeble today.


Argument 2, the lost fear of United EU:

At a long time, EU seemed to take more and more power to itself. Many with good reason begun to fear that the EU they know would work towards a United EU nation.
However at the last EU election, a very strong message was sendt to EU. We kind of like you and all, but we are not going to marry you! So the EU leadership stated, that the vission they had for EU and what the people wanted was to different things. This forced them to realised, that EU should focus more on corperation between nation trade, and less on mingle in each nations way of life.

And at long last. EU have a important principle about forcing the big things. To create something like EU united nation. It would require all nations to be asked acording to their own rules. Do you wish this to happen? If just one nation say NO! it is over. All nation has to agree, or no deal!

When Denmark said no to one of these big changes back in 1992. I belive it was the Mastrid teaty, EU panikked. A new more agreeable plan was made, and the danish people asked one time more, that this time was deamed okay by the people.

So in the end, it is a matter of if you trust your own people in goverment. If yes, this will not become a issue. If no, you would leave them in total power once you leave your european friends.


Argument 3, the good old times is over:

One argument I have heard, is that UK could reinstate the old trade system from before WW2. Alot of nations have a trade agreement with the british empire. (party forced by them being a huge world power). However many of these nations fail to see why they should do this, when they have excelent agreement with EU.

You guys would properly loose alot of trade, and would have to sit down with EU anyway to make a huge deal of treaties in order not to loose important trade, and to avoid higher tax on imported goods.


Argument 4, We would really miss you guys:

EU is a klub of nations. Make no mistake, we really love you guys, please stay!


That being said. EU is not perfect at all. A lot of isues is at hand. Alot of huge discussions becourse we are so different and stand in different situations. However it will only become better if we stick together and help eachother making it better. UK are somethemes annoying with all their questions and issues. However they are so very important to ask. So we all can make sure we get the balance that makes EU a good place to be, and not something dominant, where there is only place for EU and not the nations.

It is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have!

 Da Boss wrote:
I think they should think about how being in Europe has lead to a more stable and prosperous relationship between our nations, and how leaving Europe could damage that.

They should reflect on the positive influence Europe had on our historically violent and fraught relationship.

How major a factor? At least as big a factor as something as piddling as Child Benefit for a few thousand people.

And then they should vote. If they still want out, well, that's democracy and we'll all live with the consequences, whatever they are. I have little optimism that this sort of thinking plays in the minds of British voters though, who are pretty nationalistic.

As time has gone on, I've begun to swing round to the POV that I would rather Britain outside of Europe as it is a trojan horse for unregulated finance and neoliberalism and a consistent obstructionist for the goal I want to see achieved (a properly united Europe). So despite my worries for my home country I do wonder and am beginning to believe that it would be better for the Europe I want to see if you guys were on the outside. So you can see how my calculus is not entirely influenced by the circumstances of my home nation, but by the future of the entire Union.

I see. I'm not certain I agree with you on everything, but as ever, I respect your viewpoint.

More generally, Andrea Leadsom, the Energy Minister just published a letter about why she's supporting the 'Leave' campaign. Interesting reading.

http://www.andrealeadsom.com/downloads/eurefletter.pdf

Ketara: Cheers. As usual I am a bit firey on this topic as it is close to my heart.

The British people I work with are all very anxious, many are rushing to get German citizenship if they can.

 Da Boss wrote:
There's nothing undemocratic about it - how would you propose that the complex interests of 27 nations are best represented? This is no different to a national government proposing a law and then the national parliament getting to vote on it.

And a big part of the failure has been British obstructionism dude. That's my point.

Then shouldn't you be in favour of a Brexit so that British obstruction is removed?

I'm voting yes on ideological grounds.

I like that our lawmakers are beholden to a bunch of "unelected judges in Strasbourg", as opposed to callous career politicians, a lynch mob public and a vicious, hate-filled gutter press.

The ECHR was one of the best things to have happened to the poor and vulnerable of this country, and it would be depressing to see things get even worse for them yet again.