When considering in or out:

[PBC_1966]

Individual freedom, economic freedom or National freedom?

All three.

Economic freedom - The ability for the U.K. government to make monetary decisions based upon what is best for the U.K., not what the EU considers to be best for the EU as a whole, especially when the EU is trying to integrate very disparate economies. Look at the fiasco of Greece joining the euro, or the U.K.'s short-lived membership of the ERM (as mentioned in the UKIP booklet I linked to earlier).

National freedom - Again, the ability for the U.K. to make legislation and execute agreements with other individual countries based upon what it considers to be necessary or in the best interests of the United Kingdom. By far the bulk of new legislation each year now is passed not because of any initiative originating from within the country but in order to comply with EU Directives (although to be fair, sometimes the Whitehall bureaucrats do "gold plate" those directives and add things which the original EU orders do not require, or they take a somewhat vague order and turn it into a complex mess). Andwhile bound by the EU, the U.K. is not free to make individual agreements with other nations or to pass, amend, or repeal legislation which would violate EU regulations.

Individual freedom - The most glaring example is the EU arrest warrant, which means that based upon an accusation of wrong-doing a British citizen can be hauled off to another EU country without a judge in the U.K. even having a chance to examine primae facie evidence to see if extradition is justified. It may even be a country in which he's never set foot and for something relatively minor which is not even illegal in the U.K. Despite the EU's bleating about human rights, quite a number of European countries do not recognize basic concepts such as habeas corpus or believe in the concept of the presumption of innocence in the same way as the U.K.

Do you think that the countries and people of Europe (generally) are less free than the British (or the US)?

To a significant degree, yes, because so many European nations have long been used to the idea that the individual is subservient to the state rather than vice versa. Britain has already gone a long way toward that in some ways, and with further integration/harmonization it's only likely to become worse.

There was the European Commission statement some years ago about how most of Europe regarded the U.K. (and Ireland's) system of presumed innocence, right to jury trials and so on as "quaint" and felt that the U.K. should move more into line with Europe.

Do you think that, should we remain, Europe will insist the British are less free than the rest?

Less free that the rest of the EU countries - No. Less free than British citizens used to be - Most certainly. The U.K. has already started down that path.

 

[PBC_1966]

"Project Fear" by the Outists.

What is the project being run by the "inists" suggesting huge loss of trade, massive job losses, and an economic disaster following withdrawal?

 

[PBC_1966]

"If Britain were to vote to leave the EU in June would it regain the sovereignty that those in favour of leaving argue it has lost? The answer is no. The very fact that the UK is holding this vote proves that it remains sovereign.

In the basic sense, of course. As far as U.K. law is concerned, the country is in the EU because of the 1972 Act which took the U.K. into the then-EEC and the various legislation which has followed over the years. Repeal that legislation, and as far as U.K. law is concerned, the country is out, whatever the rest of the EU might think.

But when successive U.K. governments simply roll over and implement EU orders regardless of how damaging they may be to the country and even if most, if not all, M.P.'s in Westminster are against the legislation in question but appeasing the EU comes above national interests, then they've effectively abandoned sovereignty in all but name.

And don't forget that the EU is constantly pushing for that "ever closer union." There was already the suggestion a few years ago from the Commission to work into a treaty the condition that - among other things - a country should be "permitted" to withdraw only if every other member country agreed. Do you really think that eventually they won't try to get something like that through? It's the way the EU works, constantly trying to take more power from national governments. Remember that the EU already considers the handover of some particular power to be irrevocable (while the country remains with the EU). Do you really think that eventually there won't be a push to try and make withdrawal impossible? Of course, a U.K. government actually agreeing to any such thing really would then be handing over sovereignty and committing an act of treason.

 

[JohnD]

Are you pushing the Outist fantasy that the EU is composed of evil alien goblins? Rather than the truth, that it is composed of elected representatives from the constituent countries, and representatives provided by the constituent governments.

 

[JohnD]

Anyway, you're off message now. Didn't you get the memo instructing Outists to concentrate on whipping up Fear of Foreigners for the last few weeks, now that their economic claims have been so roundly defeated?

 

[PBC_1966]

that it is composed of elected representatives from the constituent countries, and representatives provided by the constituent governments.

And how does that prevent some of them from being in favor of an all-controlling European superstate?

 

[PBC_1966]

now that their economic claims have been so roundly defeated?

Have they?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I've never quite understood the glorious tradition of being presumed innocent until proven guilty whilst remanded in custody with your name and charges plastered all over the media bearing in mind you will never be declared innocent.

Is Britain such a great place for individual freedom?
Has the EU not invoked individual working rights which the British Government were against on the grounds of National interest - read as disadvantageous to big business?
(A very small example might be the recent slashing of mobile phone charges.)

Would California be allowed to declare unilateral independence and would it want to?

It does seem rather incongruous to live in the US and have such beliefs.

 

[swishy6]

the EU is trying to integrate very disparate economies. Look at the fiasco of Greece joining the euro

Greece is Greece. Their problems are largely self inflicted and don't really affect the UK. Anyway, it's about more than just economics. Look at Poland right now, publicly burning effigies of Jews and Muslims. Free press under attack as well as their legal system. Hungary and Austria are moving to the far right. I couldn't give a toss what UKIP thinks because I think a bit hitter like the UK needs to be more involved in the EU instead of sitting on the sidelines. The big players - UK, Germany and France need to get together and crack the whip with the rogue governments and lay the law down. Poland gets a fortune out of the EU and they need to know that there are strings attached. If it all falls apart, God knows where it will lead to a few years down the line.

 

[PBC_1966]

I've never quite understood the glorious tradition of being presumed innocent until proven guilty whilst remanded in custody with your name and charges plastered all over the media bearing in mind you will never be declared innocent.

Remanded in custody is only where bail can't be posted or there's a strong expectation of flight. I agree with your points about one's name being plastered over the media (assuming it's a high enough profile case) though, but surely that would happen either way?

The whole point of the presumption of innocence is to protect the individual by making the prosecution prove that you committed whatever crime it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Would you rather stand in court accused of a crime and have "we think he probably did it, and he can't prove that he didn't, so he's guilty" as the guiding principle?

There are also implications for somebody who is suspected of something but not yet charged. Common Law countries like the U.K. (and the U.S.A., Ireland, etc.) provide safeguards in the form of limiting how much time the police may hold an arrested suspect without charge. If they can't produce enough evidence to warrant a charge being made within a reasonably short period of time, then the suspect must be released. That is not so in many parts of the Continent, where a person may be arrested on suspicion and held for weeks on end without charge while the police go out and try to find enough evidence for a charge. Would you rather see that apply in the U.K? (Unfortunately, it's already happened to a small degree for certain cases by invoking the magic words "terror suspect" which allows a person to be held for much longer without charge - Still not as bad as parts of Europe though.)

Is Britain such a great place for individual freedom?

I think it used to be, and compared to many parts of the world it still is. Unfortunately, it's becoming less free as time goes on.

Has the EU not invoked individual working rights which the British Government were against on the grounds of National interest - read as disadvantageous to big business?
(A very small example might be the recent slashing of mobile phone charges.)

I'm not sure what phone charges have to do with working rights, but in both cases I don't think it was any of the EU's business.

Would California be allowed to declare unilateral independence and would it want to?

That's an interesting point, and opinion about the constitutionality of such seems to be somewhat divided (of course, we know that the results the last time a state tried to secede from the Union were somewhat bloody). But it's interesting that there have been rumblings from a few states about secession in recent years, notably Texas. One of the New England states also had quite a debate about it - I think it was Vermont, possibly New Hampshire.

Slightly off on a tangent, but there's a movement up here in the far north of California to break away and form a new State of Jefferson, still within the U.S.A. as a 51st state.

It does seem rather incongruous to live in the US and have such beliefs.

Why? If you're thinking of the way that some EU supporters try and liken the "United States of Europe" that the EU is trying to create with the United States of America, they're two very different things. The EU's idea of the "ever closer union" of its members is nothing like the way the U.S.A. operates.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the European procedure.
However, I stand by the points I raised.

Do you think Britain would have to come into line with Europe in these regards or vice versa or the status quo will be maintained?

I think it used to be, and compared to many parts of the world it still is. Unfortunately, it's becoming less free as time goes on.

Well, it definitely didn't used to be.

I'm not sure what phone charges have to do with working rights,

It was just a small example of the EU regarding the people over big business.

but in both cases I don't think it was any of the EU's business.

That was EE's (Orange's) stated reason for the reduction - EU Regulation.



I was just commenting on your point about countries being prohibited from leaving.
All established countries take this attitude about independence by parts of their territory.

 

[JohnD]

Scottish law is based on the "Continental" rather than the English system.

As for being detained pending inquiries, it may be preferable to being shot pending inquiries, as happens in some countries if you commit the crime of being black. PBC will have heard that mentioned.

It is worth remembering that the sort of treaty changes the anti-EU campaigners try to frighten us with, would require unanimous agreement from all nations. So the more frightening their fantasies are, the more ludicrous is the idea that they would be agreed. Unlike for example in the UK, where, say, 25% of the population can get 80% of the seats and 100% of the power, with the Prime Minister personally choosing the entire cabinet and every minister and Secretary, and rewarding all the obedient MPs by adding them to the payroll, according to his personal prejudices or whim. Thus we had a Cabinet containing more Old Etonians called Dave than it did women. The EU attempts to safeguard against extremism, understandable if you consider why and when it was created.

 

[Himaginn]

So you're saying that they now always scan U.K. passports on re-entry, but don't keep any record? Presumably the scanning is just to confirm valid details, that the person isn't wanted, etc?

As I understand it, the passport control system is linked to the Police National database, and will flag up any "markers" on that database.

 

[Himaginn]

I would submit that in the long term, remaining within the EU is far more likely to end in disaster than withdrawing. The signs are all there.

What signs?

because so many European nations have long been used to the idea that the individual is subservient to the state rather than vice versa.

That's the fundamental idea in Fascism.

There was the European Commission statement some years ago about how most of Europe regarded the U.K. (and Ireland's) system of presumed innocence, right to jury trials and so on as "quaint" and felt that the U.K. should move more into line with Europe.

Source?

Less free that the rest of the EU countries - No. Less free than British citizens used to be - Most certainly. The U.K. has already started down that path.

Examples?

 

[Himaginn]

And don't forget that the EU is constantly pushing for that "ever closer union."

Which Cameron recently negotiated away from.

There was already the suggestion a few years ago from the Commission to work into a treaty the condition that - among other things - a country should be "permitted" to withdraw only if every other member country agreed.

Source?

Do you really think that eventually they won't try to get something like that through? It's the way the EU works,
Do you really think that eventually there won't be a push to try and make withdrawal impossible?

Nonsensical conjecture.

Of course, a U.K. government actually agreeing to any such thing really would then be handing over sovereignty and committing an act of treason.

Then by your definition, they can't.