EU IN or Out Your Shout: Ten Questions

Ten young people pose ten questions on the EU in the run up to the referendum in this 2 minute Citizen TV video. Please help by writing your thoughts below this video. Thank you.

Help us caption & translate this video!

[WallaceME]

Thank you all for your questions. To answer them in order:
1) Isabel - yes, I think there's growing awareness of the fact the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic. The experience of Greece, which voted against Brussels' policies but was ignored, helped to highlight that. But mostly people still just see the symptoms of a lack of democracy - the high cost, the arrogant leaders, the bad laws etc

2) Ashante - I'd argue there's a difference between nationalism, the aggressive belief your country must be best and most powerful, and the idea of a world of nation states that get on together by living freely alongside each other. The nation has proved to be the most successful way for people to live democratically together and to build a successful, prosperous society. If anything, Britain leaving the EU would help to reduce the type of nationalism I'm guessing you're concerned about - forcing Europe's nations together into an artificial, undemocratic EU has led to a rise in extremism across the continent, including in France, Germany, Greece, Austria, Hungary and Italy. Outside the EU we can be friendly neighbours rather than frustrated flatmates.

3) Viola. In a word: no. We don't need the EU to have open borders - there are several European countries like Norway which choose democratically to have a free movement policy. Whatever your view on borders and migration, the best solution has got to be democratic control of the decision.

4) Sandra - no, I think leaving the EU is a big opportunity for us to increase our exports. At the moment, we are only free to sell within the EU, which is a market with a shrinking share of the global economy. Our trade policy with other, non-EU countries, is controlled by the EU, which is very bad at making deals, and so we are restricted in our access to the global markets where the most growth is taking place. Outside we'd be able to strike a free trade deal with the EU *but* also be free to make new deals with other parts of the world who would love to buy our produce and goods.

5) Sharif - you're absolutely right. It's a key principle for me that anyone making laws should be elected by the people and should be at risk of being sacked by the people. The EU fails that essential test.

6) Nathan - the tragedy we see in the Mediterranean and the Aegean today certainly hasn't been helped by the EU, though I would argue the main people to blame are ruthless people smuggling gangs. The EU has made two serious errors which made the situation worse: a) the abolition of borders across the EU is a good incentive for people to try dangerous routes to illegally gain access, as they are then free to move across the whole of the Schengen Zone, b) Angela Merkel and others irresponsibly sent out the message that if people managed to get to some EU countries illegally then they would be settled there - this encouraged desperate people to risk their lives and their families' lives in these hugely dangerous crossings.

7) Lessia (apologies if I have spelled your name incorrectly) - The best way to solve problems is always democratically. Not only does putting unelected officials in charge of economic policy or law-making cause anger and frustration (see Q2) but it also makes for bad economic policy and bad law, as there is no accountability. The huge numbers of unemployed young people in the Southern EU countries are victims of this problem.

8) Renée - the alternative to the EU is to live the way the vast majority of the world's countries live: governing ourselves democratically, choosing which trade deals and alliances we make, and treating the whole world as a place to make friends and do business, rather than trapping ourselves in this EU club.

9) Haristo - The EU was created as an idea in the 1950s, when a number of concepts were common: that Europe was the crucial world region, that centralisation was always stronger and that the nations of Europe would always be at risk of repeating a World War if left to their own devices. This is part of the problem with today's EU - Europe isn't the centre of the world any more, centralisation has been tried and has failed, and the peoples of Europe have proved themselves more than capable of governing themselves happily. It's an outdated 1950s idea that has survived into the 21st century by accident.

10) Bev - Being part of the EU is all cost - at least £9 billion a year in taxes, and billions more in the cost of regulations and lost trading opportunities - without much benefit. We have always benefited from trade and alliances with European countries, and those would continue without the EU.

I hope this answers your questions! We discuss these and many other issues daily at ConservativeHome.com, or you can ask more directly on Twitter @wallaceme

[otooled]

Hi, Ashante. There's nothing very internationalist about erecting trade walls with the rest of the developing world. By coming out of the EU we can be free to trade with developing countries in Africa, Asia and South America who are starting from a lower base but whose growth rates far exceed the stagnant EU. Exit from the EU will mean Britain is free to develop an truly internationalist economy. We will be helping those countries and benefitting from it ourselves. None of this is guaranteed of course, as exit will only give Britain the freedom to act and it will be up to young people like you to make sure it happens. I hope this helps.

[SUsherwood]

Hi Rene. You ask one of the big questions in the referendum debate. Unlike a general election, we're not picking a government to run the country for the next five years, but are only making a decision about one thing: whether to stay in the EU or not. As a result, there is a wide range of options open should we leave. How likely these are depends on two key factors.
The first is what kind of post-membership deal with agree with the EU. If we want to keep access to the EU's single market (which is generally popular), then we'd almost certainly have to accept keeping the free movement of people (which is one of the things that is generally unpopular) and we'd not be able to make our own trade deals with the rest of the world. If we wanted a more distant relationship, then we'd have more room for manoeuver, but we'd probably take more of an economic hit on our trade with the EU.
The second factor is what government we had. You might expect the David Cameron would have to step down as Prime Minister if he lost the referendum, so does that mean Boris Johnson or Michael Gove taking over, or a general election, where Labout might come to power? Each of these would produce very different priorities or policies.
So the short answer is that we don't know and won't know for a considerable time after a vote to leave.

[hazelthorpe]

Great thought provoking questions for all of you guys. Thank you. I'll try to be succinct in answering at least some of them. Taking the case of unelected judges - I'd ask would you prefer to have someone make judgesments upon us who were experts in their field internationally, trained  in law or  someone who is able to lobby vast numbers of people and likely to be fromthe top 2% of the wealthiest people inthe country? The Hillsborough Disaster Review was brought to a successful conclusiion for th families and victims of the disaster only because of the input from the Higher Court of Human Justice. My point here is that being elected doesn't mean you are the right person for the job. If that were the case we wouldn't be in this mess now. Many other cases of human rights have needed the support from the EU, without it they would still be suffering. We will still have free movement of people either in or out, the difference being that we  work with France and other countries in partnership to control our borders within the EU. When Labour was in power, the electorate rejected ID cards rightly so as it denies people their human right to privacy, and we have survived terrorism. Immigrants and asylum seekers  have been wrongly blamed for the castrophe which is overtaking  them. It's the elected  politicians home and abroad that have caused the problem through the obscene arms trade, the denial of human rights, the denial of poverty, homelessness and the degradation of innocent children's lives . Angela Merkel  as a Christian Democrat, has tried to set the approach with her policy for assimilating , training and welcoming workers into her country. What is the alternative? What can be an alternative to a 40 year old system of 28 countries working together for peace, prosperity and people?  Despite in faults, it certainly isn't running away and pulling up the drawbridge saying I'm all right Jack ( I've got  enough money that I can survive whatever happens. ) The  benefits of being in a large instituton like the EU which is interlinked with Europe, is the positive opportunites for people to work to save the planet, air poluution knows no boundaries neitherdoes cancer or asthma, cures for which can only emerge  if research into medicine are funded. The aswer to poverty and ignorance lies in education, research and collaboration.The EU invests 38% of its budget in rural dvelopment,   34% in jobs, and 14% in technology and research.  Finally the question is IN or OT depends on your persoanl mindset on insurance . The EU is our insurance against risk, it's another opportunity to be prosperous, not relying soley on ourselves but using all our strengths.

[andycrickoldaccount]

To answer some of the questions:
1. We can fight nationalism through greater interaction between people. For example, most areases with high levels of immigration show far higher levels of understanding. Nationalism is bred by fear and fear can be defeated by engagement. Nationalism is fear. We can be patriotic, British AND European.2. European integration came about after the devastation of the Second World War, the third conflict between France and Germany in just 80 years. The plan was quite simply to put the physical means to wage war - coal and steel - beyond the reach of these two governments. This was the basis of the Schuman Plan (named after a French Minister) but the dream was also to stop all wars in Europe, to defeat the nationalism which had caused the earlier conflicts and, quite simply, to make life easier for people living in Europe. There was also a more 'realist' need to stand up to the communist dictatorship in Russia but the ambition for Europe was always far more than this. Europe is imperfect but what has been achieved since 1950 is remarkable, making our continent one of the richest, most prosperous and most peaceful areas of the world. The EU is without question the most successful international organisation ever, growing from 6 states in 1952 to 28 now, with a queue of applicants.3. If we leave the EU, the world won't stop turning and our borders most definitely will not close but we will lose the clear benefits of the world's largest market, giving us huge opportunities to live, work and travel with such ease in 28 states, with free healthcare, reduced currency costs and social benefits which we could not guarantee if we left. If we leave and we want to trade with the EU, we will have to accept all the rules with no say in their creation. Smart choice?4. The answer to the refugee crisis is (i) stop bombing other countries (ii) fund refugee camps in the area close to the conflicts - Jordan has more than 2m Syrian refugees and needs our money to help them (iii) engage with all sides in the conflicts, regardless of how unpleasant they may be, to achieve peace first and foremost (iv) support our fellow Europeans in Greece and Italy in particular to deal with refugees humanely (v) accept a proportion of the refugees and demand that other European countries do likewise. As on so many other things, the UK should lead - and other countries look to us to do so. The UK government is already supporting refugee camps in the region far more than other countries, which is to our credit and their shame.Above all, the answer to most questions is the same: engage!

[bensamuel]

1) No I don't think we'd be better of out of it! As a supporter of the Group DieM, I think the council of ministers should live-stream their meetings so people can see what is going on, like the European Parliament.
2) Hi Ashante, my views are that Nationalism is an out-dated concept for the last 50 years. It's making a come-back as part of far-right movements which I think is a bad thing, but I think Scottish, Welsh, and Palestinian nationalism is a good thing, so we should tackle it though solidarity. As a Jew I wish Israel would be less nationalistic.
3) Absolutely we need the EU but we need to change "fortress" Europe by abolishing FRONTEX, the EU border agency and promote legal and safe ways of getting to Europe.
4) To be honest I don't know enough about the subject and can't predict the future. I just know we mustn't take the risk. One way it could increase the trade deficit is if unemployment increased in deprived areas such as the North East region, South Wales, and Northern Ireland, but I am not sure if growing GDP or cutting trade deficit or the government's deficit is a good thing to aspire to.
5) I oppose - ISDS, TTIP, and CETA, which would proliferate even worse unelected judges. By remaining in the EU we can make sure that TTIP and CETA with their ISDS clause never get signed. Romania is currently pledging to veto CETA.
6) Absolutely we need the EU but we need to change "fortress" Europe by abolishing FRONTEX, the EU border agency and promote legal and safe ways of getting to Europe.
7) I don't speak for Greece or Ireland, but the premise that there is a lack of democracy is not the way to go about it. We're trying to make the EU as democratic as humanly possible, but the best way to manage is together in solidarity.
8) Good question. This could take 2-10 years to re negotiate. If left wing people like us vote to leave, we'll be handing over the keys to UKIP and the right wing of the Tory Party. They have failed to give me anything positive to hope for. These are campaigners who have said various worrying things. They advocate the cruelty of Australia's immigration prisons and spend the money in impossible ways. They say "take back control" when it is they who are in control and we the 99% who will not be. The campaign has already led to anxiety, misleading statistics, and confusing policy. It will take years to work out how to create the alternative, and that work will cost money and be led by the Tory Government and their unelected civil servants. Do your research on these people and what they really believe in, because those belifs will shape our countries future.
9) Why I think the EU was created in the first place? I read a good text book about this by a group I am in called FYEG - Fyeg.org The EU has evolved over our history, but it started after the war to make an other war impossible, by sharing the resources like coal and steel. More recently it evolved from the common market, which Britain voted to join, to the things that we need to protect our rights in the workplace, so we have freedom for people and our environment as well as freedom for capital.

[tommykubo]

HI thanks for the challenging questions. I believe we would be better off in many ways by remaining in the EU. Firstly, I want to address the issue of democracy. The EU is democratic. We, the British people, elect our Euro MPs. Our government appoints our Ministers to the Commission just like the government of every other country appoints their own ministers. The Commission does not make the laws - it is like our civil service in that it enacts laws decided by the Council of Ministers - this council is comprised of all the heads of state of the member countries. We may get out voted on some decisions but it is just like democracy in this country. I didn't vote for the current government - I was out voted, but that doesn't mean our country is undemocratic.
Secondly, I want to live in an outward looking country that engages with our neighbours. I don't want to be seen as isolationist and inward focused. I enjoy free movement of people and want to remain in a Europe that works together to tackle difficult issues we face like climate change, terrorism, poverty. The world faced a major recession in 2008. All countries in the EU are pursuing austerity policies, even our own country. Greece has had a tough time, but what would have happened if the EU wasn't there to bail it out. I agree the EU is not perfect, but it can be changed. However, if we are not in it we won't be able to influence these changes.
Finally, the EU has been great at supporting workers rights, like paid maternity leave, paid annual holidays (there is no right in the US to paid annual holidays), and the working time directive that prevents excessive overtime. I want to continue to protect our hard won workers rights and I fear we would lose them if we had to compete alone in the highly competitive world of commerce that always wants to reduce labour and environmental standards.

[SUsherwood]

HI Isabel. When we talk about political systems being dictatorial, we usually mean that the person or people in control do not have limits on their power, that what they say goes. The EU doesn't really fit that description. Like the member states that make it up, the EU is bound by and committed to principles of democracy. This can been seen in a number of ways. Firstly, the EU can only do what its members allow it to do: there is a treaty that underpins all of this, which only member states can approve and amend. Secondly, all the EU's legislation is subject to scrutiny and approval by either representatives of the member states or the directly-elected European Parliament, and usually by both. Thirdly, there is a system of legal control, by national and the European courts, which means if the EU oversteps its powers, then it can be reined back in.
At the same time, lots of people don't feel that they are part of the EU, because it feels very distant and as if someone else is making decisions without your say. While that sense of community is certainly weak, it makes all of the factors I've outlined above all the more relevant. The British government (and its predecessors), like those in other countries, have debated and discussed what being part of the EU means, and have approved each successive extension of the EU's powers, while keeping the power to change that system: thus the EU gets much of its legitimacy from the legitimacy of its member states.

[SUsherwood]

Hi Sharif. Judges in the EU are indeed unelected, just as they are unelected here in the UK. Instead, judges in the European Court of Justice are appointed by member states, who hold the power to shape the EU (see my response to Isabel below). Those judges only deal with a limited area of legal activity, namely the interpretation of EU law (which doesn't cover all the areas of national law). The treaty that gives them this power is one that has been signed and ratified by all member states, which retain the ability to change the treaty and limit the court's power. However, over the decades they have felt that while they might have to accept rulings that go against their desires, this is outweighed by the legal gains they make, either by making other member states follow jointly-agreed rules or by ensuring that there is a uniform application of EU rules across the Union. Obviously, you tend to hear more about the cases where there's disagreement, which contributes to the feeling that you talk about of having decisions imposed on you. On this, the discussion in the UK has been like that in other member states, where national courts have accepted that the European Court of Justice can make binding rulings on them, not only so long as the ECJ represents national constitutional principles.

[schelkle]

Thank you all for your questions. To answer them in order:

1) Isabel – the EU is based on an international treaty signed by elected leaders and passed in national parliaments, sometimes in referenda. The vast majority of laws must again pass through national parliaments before they become national (and EU) law. Like any international treaty, it binds you but it also binds others not to harm you. What’s dictatorial in that? Or do you call the laws that rule international trade and set up a World Trade Organisation “dictatorial”?

2) Ashante – we live in nation states, we may be proud of our nationality but that does not make us all nationalists. In the EU, national political representatives are bound to think of what their decisions do to citizens and firms in other member states. In turn, you can expect that other member states think of the effects that their decisions have on you. That's how nations should interact with each other, just like citizens.

3) Viola. The experience is that most nation states do not have open borders with others, except if they can expect that others do it in turn. So Spaniards can come freely to seek n education and work in Britain but Brits can also live, study and work in Spain.

4) Sandra - I don't think the trade deficit would increase but nor would it decline. the idea that there is a great untapped export potential of the UK which is suppressed by the EU is, frankly, ludicrous. Those who promise this are deluding themselves and get no support from serious research (not the outdated stuff that some economists in favour of Brexit recently produced, using a textbook model of the 1970s).

5) Sheriff - do you elect judges in the UK? Or policemen and women, for that matter? They are all unelected and impose law on you. It is a good principle of checks and balances in democracies that not every post is filled by popular vote. Only populist governments, like the present one in Hungary, think so. It makes for the tyranny of the majority.

6) Nathan - nobody has so far found an easy and humane answer to controlling refugee movements, we should simply admit to that. The differences in living standards and personal freedom in the world are simply so large that desperate people will seek a better life in Europe and other places. And it is true that this can have negative effects on poorer people in the immigration countries even though these countries overall benefit from immigration. But what's the alternative? Those promising we could control our borders after Brexit should explain why the US, with its militarised border to Mexico, has not managed to control immigration. They promise not to cooperate with countries like France that at the moment do some of the border control for you, in Calais.

7) Lessia -- true, the stabilisation programmes imposed on Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus (Spain had only a programme to restore its banks) are not democratic. But do you think democracy would help in such cases? The citizens of these countries would of course vote for milder conditions, debt forgiveness and new credit. But what would the voters ofthe other countries say, that had to guarantee billions of Euros? Perhaps not wanting to guarantee any and rather have them leave. This would wipe out the savings of Greek, Irish etc households, in other words their old age security or the money they put aside to finance the education of their children. I am not defending these programmes (I think banks were let off the hook too lightly) but you have to admit that not only these distressed countries have democracies, all other EU countries are democracies as well.

8) Renée - the alternative to EU membership is not the end of the world. Of course you can trade with others and still travel. But it has disadvantages: trade may be less favourable, for instance because the UK may decide to change food standards but when they export meat and other produce to the EU, they will insist on their food standards. Same with financial regulation. And when you travel you may need a visa, if you want to settle in another European country for a few years, you need a work permit at possibly a high fee (which is what the UK imposes on Commonwealth citizens).

9) Haristo - the greatest motivation was to ensure lasting peace in Europe, with major support from what had become the most powerful nation, the United States (which competed for influence in Europe with the Soviet Union). It was thought that this could be ensured through economic cooperation, not only trade but also shared projects like promoting innovative energy sources (then thought to be nuclear, today renewables) or supporting those that would lose from industrialisation and modernisation of services (that was the origin of the common agricultural policy, regional policies are still trying to help disadvantaged regions). It was trying to prevent fascism and other authoritarian, anti-democratic movements. There is nothing sinister and imperial in these beginnings even though not all policies (like agriculture) look like such a great idea now.

10) Beth - being close to other EU countries is the main benefit but managing the relationship between cooperating states requires a few institutions. For instance, somebody has to make sure that the rules agreed between elected governments are also observed everywhere. Or a court has to decide individual cases that were not foreseen when the law was written, in other words apply the general rules to specific circumstances. To maintain such institutions costs money, The UK is a net payer into the EU budget. That's a public cost. But there are private benefits, to firms and their employees, households and their consumption, young people and their opportunities for study and work. These benefits to UK citizens more than outweigh the costs to the public purse that the UK taxpayer has to bear (btw, foreigners that work here also pay taxes, on their income and on what they buy to consume).

[TheBrenski]

It saddens me that this EU referendum has recently become about immigration as much as it has focused on the benefits and disadvantages of being a member of the European Union. The only salient fact for me is that the issues are complex, inter-related and in many cases the arguments are based on 'what if scenarios'. Some good comments posted here, about justice and freedom and security and cohesion. My view is that none of us is as good as all of us working together. The 'OUT' campaign is advocating that divorce and separation are the only options as if the UK and EU are like a married couple given trade agreements, contractual relationships and cooperation. I like to think of the EU as a family, brothers and sisters joined by common interests and needs, hoping to get the best for all of us. That takes give as well as take, and sure things are not as perfect as they should be, but we should stick at it to make it better. The challenges this dysfunctional family faces is immense, but now is not the time to walk away. Forget about supposed facts and speculation. Think about the potential benefits if we can make it work better. Shame that we are reliant on a single party UK government to negotiate that improvement, but improve it can and should, and is best achieved by staying IN the EU.

[DrPeterHirst]

Hi Everyone, I will do my best to answer your questions in no particular order. My own personal view is that we would be a poorer, more isolated country if we left the eu. Certainly it needs improving and to keep out of national issues. However, a huge amount of our social, environmental and product safety legislation is due to being in the eu. Also our ability to trade with the other countries in it with a minimum of forms is to be valued. The leave campaign have failed to show how leaving would benefit us apart from in the short term financially and in terms of eu net migration that is less than half of total movement. We joined initially both as a free trade organisation and as a vision to prevent wars. It has evolved to being a global force for tolerance, liberty, fairness, rule of law and combating poverty, climate change and smuggling.

[denisefong]

The sad emotions i feet of people dying in the sea, whilst crossing over the channels to come here for a better standard of living needs a voice. These issues affect mankind. Britain opting out of EU, lays in the hands of innocent Citizens

[robertleach]

My answers:
- I believe the UK will benefit by leaving the EU
- there is a serious democratic deficit in how the EU is run
- nationalism in the sense of being proud of your country is not a problem. It is, after all, the basis of international sporting events. The problem comes from seeing other nations or races as inferior. Each country should be independent and proud, while respecting the rights of other countries to feel the same
- free movement does not depend on being in a political union. USA and Canada has had free movement for more than 100 years. The UK has an open border with the Irish Republic
- the trade deficit is primarily caused by a lack of productivity in the UK
- it is ludicrous for UK law to be determined by European judges. They have a completely different system of law, based on a code rather than common law, and their courts use the inquisitorial system rather than the UK adversarial system
- the UK needs to control migration, not ban it. The problem is not to do with the migrants themselves as the vast number of them that is overwhelming UK resource
- the EU is not democratic. Its leaders are unelected and the Parliament cannot initiate laws
- the alternative is that the UK becomes an independent state, remaining friends and trading with and co-operating with all 198 countries of the world, and not being in a protectionist cartel of 28 countries
- the EU was formed in the 1950s with the worthy aim of preventing another dreadful war, But what worked in our grandparents' generation is not necessarily right for today. In the 1950s, East Europe was under Communist rule and many West European countries were under military rule or dictatorship. No-one foresaw that they would become peace-loving democracies. It is democracy that prevents war. There has never been a war between democracies
- the EU benefits far more from UK membership than the UK. It imposes extra costs on businesses and farms, and has in effect shut down most of our fishing industry. We pay £55 million a day of which about half comes back in the form of what the EU wants to spend our money on.

[irenecaratelli]

Dear All, great questions!
A question to you before I try to answer: if someone does not pay taxes (free riders), should we abolish the tax system?
The EU has many shortcomings, but the EU is what citizens and States 'make of it'. The EU can change and should change. Leaving the EU the UK opts for the Exit strategy. This will not make the EU more democratic, or more relevant. In a globalized and interdependent world the UK will be more isolated, will have to pay economic costs (being outside the common market and its web of trade agreements). The UK will have to take the EU as such as it will need to maintain the economic links with its member countries.

[SUsherwood]

If you'd like some more information on the referendum and the questions you've raised, then you can visit ukandeu.ac.uk for impartial and independent views. Alternatively, you can listen to the series of podcasts I've been making over the past year at www.adietofbrussels.com: if you've not got an answer to your question, then drop me a line and I can record an episode for you.