I had the same problem, did some research, and figured the best thing to do is abstain. This is of course, by some, regarded as a vote wasted. However, when historians/sociologists review the figures in years to come, they may note the large abstention votes, will analyse them to ask why, and might actually draw some kind of logical conclusion. That conclusion may, in turn, contribute to political philosophy and help future politicians realise that a citizen with a clear stake and/or role in the development of his/her country/community/federalist superstate is, by and large, happier than your average bear.

Well from me you naturally get the answer; UKIP.

I mentioned about the haulage industry because this shows that any industry, trade or job in the UK can be lost because of the maladminstration of our civil service and membership of the EU.This apllies to farmers, fishermen,steelworkers and hundreds of thousands of others here. For a good picture of it read Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph.
Tarriffs aren`t good for international trade and I hope the EU luminaries finally understand this, so if we leave they wont jeapodise jobs on both sides of the channel.For exporting with them we can abide by their rules (as we would to any other area/country) and they abide by our rules.The EU is not boycotting Chinese goods because China is not signed up to those areas you mentioned, so why should they with us ?

You`re better off placing your money with the market that has the most businesslike attitude, irrespective of the size.Size just means more people, more people to regulate and more people unemployed if trading goes off. So China, or the EU, have just as much to fear as any smaller market,eg Slovenia`s high unemployment of 10% means 200 000 unemployed, but China`s unemployment of 10% means 500 000 000 unemployed.

Britain`s civil servants are pathetic when dealing with other countries, inside or outside the EU.When the EU negotiates, they do not put our interest at the top of their priorities. I would go so far as to say they would make us a sacrificial lamb for any of the other countries, because while a country such as small Ireland has a patriotic civil service, ours still think they must have the weight of the world on their shoulders.So when you are worried about China putting punitive tarrifs on EU goods, remember we dont send much to there, we buy from there. The EU is no help to us at all.WE have ended up having trade spats with other parts of the world because we are in the EU, whereas outside it we could just carry on.
As regards Switzerland, this is a landlocked country within Europe trading per capitsa far more with the EU than we do, and exporting more than importing. It`s no surprise they adopt some of the regulations of the EU, and, i,m given to understand, chuck money into the EU pot. But we dont need to, except in areas where we want to.So if we export something to the EU we might have to adopt their packaging laws, but it is vice versa, the same as trading with the USA or Australia.
I know we dont have (much of) an empire. I`m not looking back for inspiration because, as you say, times move on. That`s why I want us to get out of the backward looking EU (made because of wars 65 years ago )and act as a normal country, putting our interests first. No one else will.

“Sorry to put an analogy in there, I`ll try to cut them out (but I find them hard to resist sometimes ).”

Hehe, no problem. I use them all the time!

“British hauliers and drivers were not pushed out of the international market because they were lazy, incompetent or greedy, but because of the way the market is rigged.”

I definitely don’t think British hauliers and drivers are lazy, incompetent or greedy. I take it this is your industry? How bad are things? You say they’ve gotten worse since joining the EU?

“Liberalising or globalising a market does not mean that more jobs are created. Sometimes this is to the contrary, as the unemployment in the former Warsaw Pact countries show.”

I think the rise in unemployment in the former Warsaw Pact countries was more to do with the fact that before liberalisation they had full employment, guaranteed by the state. Standards of living have also gone up.

“(has Scotland gone beyond devolution here ?)”

Excuse me, I do mean the UK. I’ve accidently let slip the secret plans. ;-)

“If they have tariffs, we could have tarrifs. That`s if they want to play like that.”

This wouldn’t be in anybody’s best interests. Europe wants to trade with the UK, and we want to trade with Europe. But they don’t want to let the UK trade with them if we don’t sign up to EU legislature. This is because such legislature puts certain restrictions on industries (such as working hours, tax harmonisation, packaging standards, etc) that would give the UK a competitive advantage if it didn’t abide by them.

Also, when there are two markets putting up tariffs (a big one and a small one) my money is on the bigger market outlasting the smaller one.

“And being in the EU has not proved that our companies are not vulnerable to be taken over, as BAA and our energy companies prove.”

The EU has done a lot to protect and promote fair competition. Look at the IBM fine. Or Microsoft. Or Honeywell and General Electric. The UK couldn’t have done these things on its own.

“They would be renogotiated with our interests in mind, not the other 26.And the smaller markets are not at a disadvantage because they are small.It`s a matter of who is selling and who is buying.Just how has the EU helped the UK in trade with China ?”

It isn’t always a disadvantage to be a smaller market. It does depend on what you’re exporting. But in general, it is a disadvantage.

The EU has measures in place to stop Chinese products flooding the market. China can complain about these, but there’s not a lot they can do because it needs EU trade too much. If the UK was isolated, China would have more freedom to take punitive economic measures (tariffs, quotas, etc).

“In this you are mistaken. The “Democraccy by fax” is because the complex rules at great time and expense are adopted freely by those countries, saving the trouble and expense. They dont always enact what comees from Brussels if it contradicts their own interests.”

I don’t think I am mistaken. I’ve studied Norway, Iceland and Switzerland with great interest, because these are the examples always given by eurosceptics about how things should be done.

They almost always enact what comes from Brussels, even if it’s not in their interests. This is because, overall, it’s not in their interests to be outside the Single Market.

Here’s an interesting report on the way Switzerland has had to adopt EU law:

http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=47&fileid=E1BB8EAA-3890-11A3-B7C2-E9497C9C3AFA&lng=en

Since this report was written, Switzerland has been forced to adopt even more legislation. Voters went to a referendum over it, and the EU threatened them with the guillotine.

“Secondly, we dont need to accept any laws from Brussels. There would be nothing they could do about it.”

This is where we disagree. But let’s imagine for a moment that the UK would have democracy-by-fax. Is this a deal-breaker for you? If the UK left the EU tomorrow, and then had to sign up to all of the EU legislation anyway, wouldn’t this defeat the point?

“There seems to be a theme of “large is best” in your posts. Not accepted in all situations is my take.”

In general, large markets are more competitive. Economies of scale, specialisation, greater consumer demand, etc. The exceptions are when a small market has plenty of high-demand exports (oil and gas are the classic examples). But in the case of the UK, I’m sure we would be at a disadvantage.

“We were more succesful when we traded globally than within the inward looking EU, and if what you say is true, the logic means trade locally, not with the EU.”

I know it’s something europhiles say all the time, but it still has some truth to it: we were more succesful when we had an empire and the EU didn’t exist. We don’t have an empire now and the EU does exist. Times have changed.

“I dont know how long China can remain a low wage economy and another factor is government interference and taxation, which again, shovellling money into the EU and being rigged up out the market, shows we should leave.”

I’m not sure either, and China is (I think) a seperate issue, so I won’t address it (unless you want to).

“How has the EU helped in the problem of American subsidies to its military complex ?”

Specifically with the military complex? It’s a sensitive issue (because the US doesn’t want to outsource military projects) but the EU has supported Airbus against Pentagon funded projects (only US companies can compete for a lot of these contracts – so it’s de facto protectionism, something the WTO is bad at dealing with).

Anyway – in general, we may not agree. But I still think these are valid concerns I’m raising. I’m not certain I know what will happen if the UK stays with the EU. But I do think that, on balance, we’re better off in.

You know by now that I feel the EU has plenty of problems – and I still think we should stay in.

Sorry to put an analogy in there, I`ll try to cut them out (but I find them hard to resist sometimes ).

Taking your points in order if I can,

About jobs – As my own trade shows, it is absolutely no good having an open market if the odds are stacked against you not just by the EU but also by what should be your own side.
Please understand this :British hauliers and drivers were not pushed out of the international market because they were lazy, incompetent or greedy, but because of the way the market is rigged. Rigged. In this “Single Market”.
Liberalising or globalising a market does not mean that more jobs are created. Sometimes this is to the contrary, as the unemployment in the former Warsaw Pact countries show.
So companies in England may be restricted in the EU market, but so would the EU countries be restricted in England (has Scotland gone beyond devolution here ?) If they have tariffs, we could have tarrifs. That`s if they want to play like that.And being in the EU has not proved that our companies are not vulnerable to be taken over, as BAA and our energy companies prove.

2]They would be renogotiated with our interests in mind, not the other 26.And the smaller markets are not at a disadvantage because they are small.It`s a matter of who is selling and who is buying.Just how has the EU helped the UK in trade with China ?

3]In this you are mistaken. The “Democraccy by fax” is because the complex rules at great time and expense are adopted freely by those countries, saving the trouble and expense. They dont always enact what comees from Brussels if it contradicts their own interests.
Secondly, we dont need to accept any laws from Brussels. There would be nothing they could do about it. Why should they want to ?We import more from them than they take from us, and would the guiding lights of the project risk even more unemployment and economic depression in a fit of pique ?

4] There seems to be a theme of “large is best” in your posts. Not accepted in all situations is my take.(And would it be the largest without the UK, and what preperations are being made for whwen it collapses ?)
We were more succesful when we traded globally than within the inward looking EU, and if what you say is true, the logic means trade locally, not with the EU.
I dont know how long China can remain a low wage economy and another factor is government interference and taxation, which again, shovellling money into the EU and being rigged up out the market, shows we should leave.
How has the EU helped in the problem of American subsidies to its military complex ?

“Firstly remember I am advocating Britain coming out of the EU because we are unsuited to it, I`m not sure about abolishing it if that`s what the citizens of other countries want (although I think it will implode).”

Point taken. Not everything I said will apply to your argument, but I think most of it still does.

“Joe, please tell us how leaving the EU will cost us jobs.What jobs and why ?”

Well, firstly I’m sure that trade would suffer. But not only trade, cross-border services would suffer as well. Any jobs connected to them would also suffer.

But more than this – companies within England would be restricted in terms of the markets they could compete in (remember, they would not be barred from European markets – but the external tariff would make them uncompetitive), and they would be vulnerable to larger companies from overseas.

The actual reasons I think this would be the case are in my P.S.

“1}We wouldn`t be in the single market to need enforcing it.”

You are quite right, this one doesn’t apply to your specific argument.

“2}Sorry but that`s like saying you have more influence over your bank manager if you took along your neighbour.And then ley your neighbour do the barganing. EU representatives do not put us first as their main concern, in fact I bet we get sacrificed for others.”

There’s no need to argue by analogy, because the argument is very clear on its own. If the UK left the EU, the old trade agreements concerning tariffs and other barriers to trade with the US, China, India, Russia, etc, would no longer apply (because they were negotiated with the EU, rather than with the UK). They would need to be renegotiated.

When the EU negotiates with China as a bloc, two of the largest markets in the world are sat at the table. When the UK negotiates with China on its own… One side has all the cards.

“3}I cant understand why you say that. Why would that be so ?
Parliament would become the supreme lawmaker in the UK again and we would be electing our supreme lawmakers again. How does having Brussels governing us make us more democratic ?”

Brussels would be governing us to an even greater extent if we relied on the EEA, or if we signed bilateral trade agreements with the EU. This is because we would have to sign up to EU law before they would trade with us. Democracy-by-fax is a phrase used in Switzerland, Norway and Iceland to describe the system they have. They sign up to the laws, but aren’t able to influence the law-making process.

“4}The EU may be the larges single (?) market”

It is indeed the largest market on Earth, not in terms of number of people (probably China) but in terms of trade.

“and politically reasonably stable (why do you think it is more so than America, Australia or New Zealand ? )”

America, Australia and New Zealand are the most stable of the commonwealth countries. The markets of Australia and New Zealand are too small to support us on their own if we left the EU.

America, on the other hand, IS a large, politically stable market. But do you think we’d be able to compete with Canada for that market? Being geographically close DOES make a difference in terms of the prices and services you can offer your customers (either that, or having PPP so low you can pay your workers next to nothing – something China has, but not us).

Even if we could compete, the same problems with trade negotiations exist. America can subsidise or protect its companies (which is what it does, for example, with those companies taking military contracts) so we can’t compete… and there wouldn’t be anything we could do.

I read EUtopia as often as I can. Though I rarely comment I’m in a bit of a bind as to who to vote for.

I live in the North West England constituency.

I would probably consider myself a classical liberal, against a United States of Europe but in favour of friendship and free trade within the EU. I want the good bits of the EU without all the ready-made law making. I’m not sure I want to leave entirely. I might be the kind to vote Conservative if they were more Eurosceptic, civil libertarian, more patriotic and less, well, statist. I would probably have voted for David Davis. I want a referendum on the EU and the Lisbon Treaty. I want both the pro- and anti- sides to put their cases honestly, truthfully, and faithfully.

I will not ever vote Labour. Ever. There is no way that that will happen.

I don’t much like the Tories at the moment and have very little faith in them. As I am anti-EU I don’t suppose I would be wanting to support a European party composed of pro-EU MEPs. I would vote for Dan Hannan but he’s not in my constituency and anyway he’ll make it in.

The Liberal Democrats are far too pro-EU for me. They are too much into positive liberty for my liking. I worry about their true attitude to civil liberties, free speech and freedom from government.

I like the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage. He comes across well probably because I like the cut of his jib and demagoguery and screaming-the-house-down politics all appeal to me. I like his libertarian conservative politics. The rest of his party, with one or two exceptions, show themselves up. They are a mixture of men from a bygone age, guys on the make and unhinged EU obsessives.

Nick Griffin will probably get himself a seat as he’s standing here. Can’t stand their party or the racist collectivism they stand for. Utterly repulsive.

NO2EU are a motley crew of socialists, Jury Team are a bunch of random independents selected from a list and Libertas is a joke.

I understand that the platform that I would support – conservative-leaning libertarian Euroscepticism with a touch of nationalism – can’t really do anything for me inside the EP.

So, who do I vote for? I leave it up to you.