What would happen if UK "bailed out" of the EU after 40 years of membership. ?

Yes and unfortunately for people like you, it gives a voice to the people, communicates their thoughts, ideologies and opinions, good and bad, and as many as there are loony web sights there are also included very good ones that provide information, education and illumination for people who would otherwise never know what was going on in the world and with their politicians and governments.   You no longer have to buy a newspaper, it is zoomed into your living room !

It is what is called democracy and free thinking, of course left wingers would love it if the only information that came out of the net was propaganda drivel so they can carry on brainwashing people, thank god there is still some freedoms left in the world.

Teh Net - the greatest thing that was ever invented !

I think this thread has wandered off topic and has become embroiled in a debate on immigration.

My personal view on the EU is that as an organisation to encourage trade between member countries is an excellent idea. The original concept was exactly that, and the opportunities presented to UK (and European) businesses allowed trade to flourish. Sadly, this simple concept has burgeoned into a bloated bureaucracy that consume vast amounts of taxpayes hard-earned cash to propgate itself. There were some fairly simple criteria to be applied to any prospective member state before they were allowed entry, but these have gradually fallen by the wayside over the last 40 years. Thankfully the UK remained out of the Euro, as I beleive that we would be in a much worse state had we joined, allowing Brussels to set interest rates etc.. The idea of one-size fits all just does not work when applied to the many disparate economies of the member states, and their own self-interest will always create tensions.

As for the way forward, I believe the UK should remain as a member, but the fundamental concept must be re-evaluated because  the model of 40 years ago has changed radically, and no longer works as originally envisioned. I do not support any political party, but fair play to UKIP for highlighting the issues and bringing them into the public arena. I do not read newspapers regularly, so can't comment on the statements that the press is 'waging an anti-Europe campaign'. I suspect the average UK taxpayer, is much more savvy than politicians, the press, and some of the contibutors on here give them credit for, and I expect the debate on the referendum to be lively, and hopefully, coherent. I believe that Cameron is correct to attempt to re-negotiate the terms of continued UK membership, but I also believe that all other member states should also be engaging in similar debates. Obviously some of them are net gainers, and will wish to retain the status-quo, but this monster needs to be tamed.

The biggest problem in the UK is that we have had weak, and ineffective government since Thatcher was ousted. We have not had the guts to make decisions and stick to them. The Abu-Quetada situationn is a classic example. We played by the rules nad we still have the problem. Had he been in France, they would have put him on a plane, then gone to the ECHR and said "We've kicked him out, what are you going to do about it?' The answer, I suspect would be 'Absolutely nothing'. We have to cut the bueaucracy and interfering ((bananas not striaght enough etc), and get back to being a trading bloc.

vrodrig -

Now most of what you say I can agree with.    Except that I don't think for one minute that Germany and the rest of the EU nations will agree to allowing a renegotiation of terms back to what it should have been, a trading block of nations, not even for us.   I get the sense that most countries would vote against changing the basic concept of the EU because they get far more out than they put in and want to keep it that way. plus countries like Greece and Cyprus still cannot sort their countries unless they are allowed to leave the EU and they owe Brussels far too much money already and need more to prop them up and avoid collapse.   Countries that are not as advanced as us like Romania, Croatia, etc. are not at a stage where they can compete with the rest of the world on trade and their economies cannot function on the same level as countries like ours so how do you expect them to agree to refuse the hand outs from Brussels to go back to funding themselves ?

I believe Cameron's requests will be denied and we will still come back to an IN/OUT Referendum in the end.

VRODRIG, let's not confuuse the ECHR with the EU.  They are entirely seperate institutions.  The ECHR was started afer the second World War to protect  the citizens of Europe from the excesses of Governments and dictators and good luck to them too.

We need to dump both of them and have our own Bill of Rights in the UK.   I am fed up of seeing millions of our pounds supporting terrorrists and their offspring here, strutting round the place smirking and having more power than the PM !   Actually if I had been the PM I would have shoved Abu Qatada on a plane and dropped him over the ocean - best place for him, if not I would have just deported him and told Brusssels to go hang  !

if not I would have just deported him and told Brusssels to go hang  !

Demonstrating your in-depth knowlege of the subject upon which you feel able to spout wisdom again?

The case has nothing to do with Brusssels (sic). Nada. Zero. Zilch. You have been told this before, by several people, but evidently, it has not sunk in yet.

Not only the wrong city, but completely the wrong country.... DUH!!!

Here's a map for you.

This thread is a bit like reading Leaky Lee's racist tripe in the Euro Weekly. Question on a forum called 'Eye on Spain': What would happen if the UK bailed out of the EU?...

Thos of us who live in Spain might see out status changed. For the worse obviously.

66d35 -

What are you going on about - wrong country ?   

The point being made is that if the UK were NOT in the EU we would not have a problem deporting terrorists as we could pull out of the ECHR too as there would be nothing to stop us, so that would be a very good thing for the UK?  

Which part of that do you not understand and the question being asked ?    The question raised was "What would happen if UK "bailed out" of the EU".   Well one of the things that would happen is that we could go back to implementing our own laws !

This is nothing to do with being racist, this is to do with closing the borders and controlling our economy, if you prefer for your own bigotted mentality to label it racist so be it, just another of  those pro-Labour pro-immigrant labels like Brown tried to stick on that poor woman when he was on walkabout, he was the bigot in ignoring her concerns for his own party's agenda, to gerner votes for the party for generations to come by inviting (and sending out search parties) millions to come to the UK to take jobs.   Just another bunch of people who are not faced with the problems of lack of housing, jobs etc. who live in their ivory towers away from the problems.

Duhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!    

Lenox -

The question was "what would happen if UK bailed out of the EU, not what would happen to Spain if UK bailed out !!

As we have properties in both, it affects us in both.

Happy now ?

What are you going on about - wrong country ?  

if not I would have just deported him and told Brusssels to go hang  !

Brussels is in Beligium and has nothing whatever to do with deporting Abu Qatada.  Strasbourg is in France, and does, as it is where the ECHR is based.

66d35, apologies, my mistake, in my excitement I picked the wrong seat of power !

JWhite    

                           You said,  what would happen if UK bailed out of the EU, not what would happen to Spain if UK bailed out !!

Sorry but surly what would happen is an open question?  It does not say what would happen in say UK or in Spain but implies anywhere and everywhere.

I have dual Nationality, British and Irish so, apart from the fact that my pension income comes from UK, I will still be a citizen of the EU

"Sorry but surely what would happen is an open question?"

Exactly, which is why I responded to the comment from Lennox  "Question on a forum called Eye on Spain", seemingly to point to the fact that it only involves Spain, it does not !

JWhite, the fact that you also have got Irish nationality does not excuse the fact that you can't seem to to grasp that the ECHR has bugger all to do with the EU!  Russia are signatories and when did they get into the EU!!!!!!

I am not Irish !   Try to keep up !   It is John xx.

Where in my posts did I say the ECHR has anything to do with the EU.   They are separate but linked in that you can't be in one without the other.   The point is if we want to rule this country with our own laws and chuck out terrorists etc. we have to get out of the ECHR.   You cannot dump the ECHR whilst you are a member of the EU, which is why we need to leave.

lenox -it's LeaPy Lee!

JWhite.  "They are separate but linked in that you can't be in one without the other".

I am going to say this is big letters so you can understand, RUSSIA FOR EXAMPLE IS A SIGNATORY TO THE ECHR BUT IS NOT IN THE EU,  as I said in my previous post.  As are:

• Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritius, Morocco, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, South Africa, Syria, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela and the observers Canada, Israel, Japan, Mexico, United States.
• European states: Kazakhstan, Belarus and the observer Vatican City.

Why is David Cameron faffing about with gay marriage legislation when Civil Partnerships are so new and have not had time to be established. 

Instead, he should be consulting on which powers we should take back from the EU and what relationship we want to have with the EU if we remain members.  He should then start negotiation with the EU and establish what is on offer, it is all very vague and I do not think we will be allowed to cherry pick.  By the time we get to the referendum we need to know what type of relationship with the EU we are voting on.  I am fearful that employee protection is going to suffer as many British companies complain about the minimum wage and the working hours directive.  

Why is it called the European Court of Human Rights and The European Convention on Human Rights when it should be the International Court and Convention of Human Rights. 

Well... it stems from the 'Universal Declaraton of Human Rights' which was established by the UN in 1948, partly in response to Nazi abuses. It is worth reading these. There are 30 basic principles:

www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I had a conversation only the other day with someone who reckoned the UK should "pull out of all this Human Rights rubbish". I asked him to list the specific rights he had a problem with. He got 2 out of 30, and even then, did not really understand them!

Anyone else who think they don't like them should at least read them first.

There are different classes of signatory to the ECHR, full members, and those with observer status.