***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 10 *****
=============================================================
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Apr 16 at 10:13
|
I think there will be a split vote the older generation wants out and the younger generation if they get of their backsides will vote in.
And that will be the problem if they bother to vote.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 10:10
|
|
I agree with Dutchie on the voter turnout.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 10:10
|
|
If you don't vote it's because you don't care.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 10:10
|
If you don't vote it's because you don't care.
Ordinarily I'd agree, but I suspect a fair number of non-voters will be because they simply do not know who is telling the truth.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 10:10
|
>>>>
>> Ordinarily I'd agree, but I suspect a fair number of non-voters will be because they
>> simply do not know who is telling the truth.
>>
How does that differ from any election?
|
'Telling the truth' is an over-simplification. (Here? Really?) Politics isn't about truth and lies - for the most part there's no 'truth' to tell; it's about compromise and choosing the priorities that determine the allocation of finite resources. Individuals instinctively tend to the selfish (right wing) or altruistic (left wing), then modify their natural position with varying degrees of realism about what can be achieved (or got away with) in practice.
This referendum is no different because we don't know that either outcome will be objectively 'better' than the other. Fundamentally, people will decide either that international partnership is the best way for a medium-sized country to play nicely in the wider world, or that it's better to jump off the bus and let the rest make the rules we'll have to play by without us. I know which one makes sense to me.
|
>> This referendum is no different because we don't know that either outcome will be objectively
>> 'better' than the other. Fundamentally, people will decide either that international partnership is the best
>> way for a medium-sized country to play nicely in the wider world, or that it's
>> better to jump off the bus and let the rest make the rules we'll have
>> to play by without us. I know which one makes sense to me.
And thats the point. The "Ins" can't prove we will be better "in", the "outs" can't prove we will be better out, but both agree there will be a period of uncertainty and turmoil.
So why suffer the only bit we know will happen?
|
>>Fundamentally, people will decide either that international partnership is the best
>> way for a medium-sized country to play nicely in the wider world, or that it's
>> better to jump off the bus and let the rest make the rules we'll have
>> to play by without us.
What a wonderfully unbiased way of putting it.
Fundamentally, people will have to balance the emotional comfort of being one of the gang, and largely putting aside self-determination while we are in it, or becoming an independent country that will still have to compromise on some things to maintain good relationships with the gang.
|
>> Individuals instinctively tend to the selfish (right
>> wing) or altruistic (left wing), then modify their natural position with varying degrees of realism
>> about what can be achieved (or got away with) in practice.
You do talk some utter tosh.
It will presumably come as a huge surprise to you that there are many people who vote for the 'right' who do so not out of selfishness.... but out of realism.
Those same people think that the left's altruism, whilst good in itself, is often wholly unrealistic and needs the realism of the 'right' to be able to enable the country to afford to look after those that need it.
Whilst there are no doubt some who vote 'right' who care little for others, your sweeping generalisation as to 'selfishness' of 'right' voters needed correction, particularly as there will be plenty of selfish 'left' voters as well.
|
Tosh? You've quoted what I wrote, rubbished it, then paraphrased it and passed it off as your own idea.
Of course, everyone will say their views are 'realistic', so there's not much of a case to make there.
|
>> Tosh? You've quoted what I wrote, rubbished it, then paraphrased it and passed it off
>> as your own idea.
Are you genuinely saying you don't understand the point I am making?
>> Of course, everyone will say their views are 'realistic', so there's not much of a
>> case to make there.
Do you really think that 'right' voters think selfishly? All of them?
|
>> Where did I say that?
>>
Fri 8th April 1122am.... "Individuals instinctively tend to the selfish (right wing)..."
|
WillDeBeest:
1) "Individuals instinctively tend to the selfish (right wing) or altruistic (left wing)"
2) "then modify their natural position with varying degrees of realism about what can be achieved (or got away with) in practice"
Westpig:
1) "there are many people who vote for the 'right' who do so not out of selfishness.... but out of realism."
2) "Those same people think that the left's altruism, whilst good in itself, is often wholly unrealistic and needs the realism of the 'right' to be able to enable the country to afford to look after those that need it"
So, WillDeBeest believes that people tend towards one or the other, but then modify their position taking into account reality.
Whereas Westpig feels that whether or not people like or admire one side or the other they modify their behaviour to take into account reality.
I can see this breaking into a huge and endless argument given that you are both hold such different positions.
No, wait...........
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 16:28
|
"Individuals instinctively tend to the selfish (right wing) or altruistic (left wing),"
Should read:
Individuals instinctively tend to the selfish (right wing) or hypocritical (left wing),
Realists understand that
;-)
|
|
I may not agree with you, HW, but at least I think you understand your own argument.
|
It seems to me that who is "telling the truth" as far as leaving or staying in hardly relevant. Nobody nobody knows what the effects will be either way. Nobody know the "truth"
We can make guesses based on assumptions but the future is so unpredictable and the effects of the decision will stretch so far into the future that in truth there is no "right decision" just a best guess. A vote either way could be either disastrous to the country, beneficial or, perhaps most likely, likely to have very little effect to our future prosperity and security one way or another.
Since there is no knowing of the outcome of our decision and the least likely outcome of staying is some sort of economic and social disaster it seems to me that the pragmatic decision is to stay as we are. A leap in the unknown with only a small chance that the decision will pay off seems a risky thing to do. A bit like putting your life savings on a horse in the Grand National.
Personally I will vote to staying. Not for economic reasons, although I do believe the "In" crowd have better arguments on this score.
No, the reason I will vote "In" is that I believe fractured Europe is a dangerous Europe and that Europe needs the UK as much as the UK needs Europe. If the UK leaves then there is the possibility that other countries will follow suit and in the long term Europe will revert to a collection of countries set one against the other. But like I said no one knows. Just a personal view
|
Yes, CGN! The EU may not have prevented or stopped the wars among its neighbours but there have been none that I can think of between its members in the 60 years of its existence. That's a powerful argument for keeping it together: we can respect difference and diversity while agreeing on the basics that unite us all as humans - Alle Menschen werden Brüder is one German's poem, not a German plot.
The fragmented Europe and rival power blocs of 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries seems a long way away now, but that's not a good reason to risk stepping back in that direction.
|
The British Empire lasted about 300 years.
Since the end of World War 2 the American Empire has been in full swing
I cannot see the American Empire lasting 300 years.
Is the " Empire " of America going to be replaced by the European " Empire " once again.
I do not know.
|
Is the " Empire " of America going to be replaced by the European " Empire " once again?
Obviously not. Who thumbed that?
|
>>The EU may not have prevented or stopped the wars among its neighbours but there have been none that I can think of between its members in the 60 years of its existence. That's a powerful argument for keeping it together:
We have NATO to thank for that, not the European Union. We will continue to be members of NATO after we have left the European Union.
|
We have NATO to thank for that, not the European Union.
I don't think so. NATO was always an outward-looking organization, formed to support the US in its standoff with the Soviet Union and focused on militarily deterring bad guys (real or imaginary) beyond its borders.
The countries of Western Europe (and, latterly, the post-Soviet East) haven't gone to war - or even looked like it - because shared economic interests and development leave them nothing to fight about. NATO has had nothing to do with that.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 14:04
|
I'm quite sure that what made the Common Market, the EEC, the EU as it became, desirable to the voters of Europe was the history of two devastating wars which nobody wanted to repeat. That was certainly in my mind in 1975, knowing that both my parents and my grandparents generations had lived through world wars 25 years apart.
However I see no evidence that it is the EU has kept the peace in Europe. Western European countries and the US were allies in the cold war for much of that time, and the fact that the USSR did not roll over more of Europe than it did is probably largely owing to NATO, and NATO's refusal to agree a no-first-nuclear-strike treaty with the Soviets.
The EU seems to have become a bone of contention as much as a friendly alliance. It does not appear to me to be working. There is no European identity. The facade of European unity, easily maintained when everything was going well, is cracking. There is no european union (lower case). How many people even know the name of their MEP, or can name the President of the European Parliament?
Cameron should be ashamed of the plan to distribute a blatant piece of unbalanced propaganda, after his promise to "fight fair". If the case for Remain is so strong and so obvious, it should simply not be necessary. Emotionally, I am an innie. I want to be an innie. Rationally, I'm struggling with that wish, and I would really like to see a well stated case to support it. Maybe there isn't one.
|
My thought is to Remain as well.
But David Cameron is not persuading me.
If the referendum is a NO Vote will David Cameron do the honerable thing and resign.
Cameron is not helping his cause by not being 100% honest about his tax returns.
The undecided voter I think is tempted to vote to leave the European Union and stab Cameron in the back.
I thought David Cameron was always anti-Europe anyway.
Am I missing something.
|
>>Cameron is not helping his cause by not being 100% honest about his tax returns.
And where hasn't he been?
>>Am I missing something.
When aren't you?
|
This is 2016 Will, not 1949. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to 'mutual defence' in response to an attack by any external party, and that policy will most certainly continue after we have left the European Union, as will our trade with Europe.
In all honesty, I don't really see the UK ever leaving the EU, come what may but, if we vote to stay in, the EU will have got it all their own way, thanks to Cameron and his Chamberlain act. I don't think Boris is really serious about leaving the EU either, although he is serious no doubt about having his eyes on No.10.
When the vote goes the way of the Brexiters, there will be much negotiating to be carried out, Cameron will most likely resign (he's had enough anyway), Boris will become PM.
The EU will have to come up with something better to satisfy the British people - for their own sakes too, because if Britain leaves the EU, the whole lot could well begin the crumble, as if it isn't already.
|
>> This is 2016 Will, not 1949. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its
>> member states agree to 'mutual defence' in response to an attack by any external party,
not quite iirc it says take whatever action is deemed necessary it may not be military. Although in practice in the era covered above it would be military in nature.
|
>> >> This is 2016 Will, not 1949. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby
>> its
>> >> member states agree to 'mutual defence' in response to an attack by any external
>> party,
>>
>> not quite iirc it says take whatever action is deemed necessary it may not be
>> military. Although in practice in the era covered above it would be military in nature.
Nato only has a military option for defence or influence, Involving the military means killing people. The EU has political and financial clout for defence and influence, mostly non lethal weapons.
|
> not quite iirc it says take whatever action is deemed necessary it may not> be> military. Although in practice in the era covered above it would be military in> nature.
>>
>> Nato only has a military option for defence or influence, Involving the military means killing people. The EU has political and financial clout for defence and influence, mostly non lethal weapons.
>>
Groups have the power they are given by the countries in them, countries may use non lethal force in the context above inside or outside nato.
Almost wholly would perhaps be a better way to describe it rather than mostly.
|
Dog (and Manatee), you've missed my point about NATO's purpose being to deter external aggression, which it has not failed to do. (It's hard to say 'succeeded' as there's little evidence that the Soviet Union had any aggressive intent.) I have no problem with that continuing - nor any doubt that it will.
Stability within Europe is a different matter. As long as the countries of Europe have more to gain by working together than by fighting, peace is assured. Begin to dismantle that and you take the first step towards the factionalism that blighted previous centuries. It may not happen in your lifetime - or even in mine or my children's - but don't we have a responsibility to do whatever we can now to keep it from happening at all?
|
I have an 18 month old grandchild, and likely another one in due course. I am deeply concerned with the future. The big threats seem to be asymmetric global growth, political instability elsewhere than Europe, population, climate change, resources, terrorism, and proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials.
Relations with the EU are a consideration, but I incline to think that will look after itself whether we are in or out; possibly even better with the break up of the EU into more manageable chunks. What we have now seems ineffective on the big issues.
That's a very shorthand response, I have to make the tea:)
|
>>Stability within Europe is a different matter. As long as the countries of Europe have more to gain by working together than by fighting, peace is assured. Begin to dismantle that and you take the first step towards the factionalism that blighted previous centuries. It may not happen in your lifetime - or even in mine or my children's - but don't we have a responsibility to do whatever we can now to keep it from happening at all?
Good post Will - I take on board what you say AND given you the thumbs up :)
|
Thanks, Dog. Virtual handshake offered.
I wrote here a while ago that there's little point arguing over facts because most of us will make a decision that's primarily emotional. I've always been an internationalist - what unites humanity is greater than what divides it. It's partly why I'm lucky to work where I do; on the phone today I spoke to a Colombian, a South African, a Romanian, an Argentinian, a Croatian, two Italians, two Germans and a Lebanese-Canadian. And that's not an unusual day. I've done UK-centred jobs and they've felt very hemmed-in compared to this. (Without exception, incidentally, they're hoping the UK will vote In; they know we're bigger and better together.)
So that's what's driving my thinking: the world is an amazing place to work and play, and we have the perfect springboard to it. Narrowing our horizons now would be a tragedy.
|
>>So that's what's driving my thinking: the world is an amazing place to work and play, and we have the perfect springboard to it. Narrowing our horizons now would be a tragedy.
Yup! .. maybe I've lived in Cornwall too long. One thing I enjoyed about living in Tenerife was all the different nationalities I got to meet. Even in our edificio there were Spanish (who'd have thought it!) Italians, French, Germans, Belgians, Dutchies, Aussies, Northerners :) and we all got along just fine and dandy.
I still think it would be a good card to play - vote to leave, then negotiate a better deal. Look what it did for the jocks when Cameron read the tealeaves incorrectly re. the polls. But as I say, there's no way I could see the UK actually leaving the EU, even if the vote goes 'my way', which it could quite easily do. Cameron and his henchmen are well aware of this of course, which is why they have splashed out c£10k of our money on the leaflets but, all's fair in love and war.
|
>> >>Narrowing our horizons now would be
a tragedy.
That's putting a construction on the Leave argument, which is subjective and fair enough in the context of debate or as an expression of a sincerely held view.
The opposite view is that it is Europe that is becoming an inward looking club.
It's very hard simply to illuminate this subject, as opposed to debating it, without becoming mired in half truths.
I am frankly disgusted by the government's actions here. See the recent press release from Liz Truss in her official capacity, brazenly entitled
"Government responds to public desire for EU facts".
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-responds-to-public-desire-for-eu-facts
These "EU facts" actually turn out to be the infamous leaflet, entitled
"Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK."
goo.gl/Y2WOHO (pdf link)
Not content with half truths, it uses facts (few enough) that it does contain to mislead- are the writers of this simply innumerate, or are they just assuming we are?
...the Government’s
judgement is that [striking a good deal quickly] would be
much harder than that – less
than 8% of EU exports come
to the UK while 44% of UK
exports go to the EU.
clearly designed to suggest that we sell them more than they sell to us.
For the benefit of anybody dazzled by percentages, the 8% is of a much bigger number than the 44%: a glance at the second chart here from the ONS goo.gl/gH3d3x makes it clear that the value of our imports from the EU exceeds the value of our exports to it. As of 2014, our balance of trade with the EU was £61.6bn in the EU's favour - i.e. it sells us considerably more than we sell to it, a truth well known I hope to Ms Truss & Co, but which it is impossible to infer from the leaflet's "facts".
The government's response to the public desire for facts, in short, is two fingers rampant.
Disgraceful, and despite my gut feeling that Remain may be the right decision it makes me wonder why Cameron supports this deceit - if the answer is as clear as he says, why not present the full facts in the most objective way? It can't be that difficult with the resources at the government's disposal.
|
Manatee, I too am pretty peed off with the Government's leaflet - both for what it contains and for the amount of public money spent.
So peed off, in fact, that I wrote to my MP yesterday as follows:
"To: penningm@parliament.uk
Dear Mr Penning,
I know I'm not alone in feeling pretty brassed-off about the Government's spending of tax-payers' money on what is patently a one-sided publication about the EU referendum.
The Government's response to criticism is that it is providing "information", but I'm afraid that is the same sort of justification that totalitarian régimes use when they provide what those in a free society call "propaganda".
And as far as I can see, the cost of the leaflet - over £9 million - breaches the rules about what expenditure is allowed in the run-up to the referendum. And will £9 million of public money now be made available to the "out" campaign?
As one of your constituents I am calling on you to make a stand against this example of blatant unfairness and abuse of governmental powers.
Yours sincerely,
FP."
No reply as yet, though I expect something at some point.
(Mike Penning is Conservative and is accepted to be a good local MP. He is Minister of State for Policing and for Justice, formerly Minister of State for Transport, Minister of State for Northern Ireland, and Minister of State for Disabled People.)
Last edited by: Focal Point on Sat 9 Apr 16 at 12:35
|
>>Narrowing our horizons now would be a tragedy. >>
That's true, which is why staying in the narrow and sclerotic EU is a no, no.
Let's embrace the wider world without the constraints of doing so hemmed in by rules made by others, whose priorities are not ours.
The EU single market, i.e. a trade agreement between consenting nations, is in isolation, a good idea, which is morphing , as intended, into a European Federal State .
I think that the U.K. in addition, should look to the rest of the world, much of which is growing, rather than being shackled by E.U. rules about the terms of, and with whom, we can trade on our own terms. The world outside the E.U. is a much bigger market.
I admit that there are a considerable number of people driven by criteria other than pure economic advantage, amongst whom I stand.
I believe in my country: its inherent qualities (in spite of lapses) and do not wish it to become a "region" of the USE. I know I'm nearing the end of my time and in the short term the decision will not, as the jargon has it, "impact" much on me, or my lifestyle.
It is with a degree of selfishness, therefore, that I would be prepared to accept initial economic disadvantages (should they occur) in the rather unlikely event they would be substantial enough to cause severe problems, should we decide to exit the E.U.
I do believe that my daughter and more importantly, even, my grandchildren will bless those of us who had the bottle to extract ourselves from the E.U. experiment, as Great Britain would stand as a independent nation able to make decisions on its own destiny.
|
>> So that's what's driving my thinking: the world is an amazing place to work and
>> play, and we have the perfect springboard to it. Narrowing our horizons now would be
>> a tragedy.
>>
Leaving the EU would not impact on our ability to interact with the rest of the world, any more than it would prevent us from importing migrants into the country. It would however, allow us to bring in who we want and when we want them, rather than being stuck with people we don't want simply because they have gained residency in another EU country.
And of the ten people you spoke on the phone two yesterday six were from non EU countries, and I'm sure the other four wouldn't have hung up on you if we weren't members ourselves.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 9 Apr 16 at 17:26
|
A bit more fuel for the fire:
"Since the creation of the euro, Germany has run a pretty much consistent positive current account balance. Germany is better off to the tune of about €1.8 trillion (£1.5 trillion) since 2000.
But if you add together the current account balances of France, Spain and Italy over the same time, they are collectively nearly €1.2 trillion in the red"
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/08/it-is-germany-itself-not-a-brexit-that-will-destroy-the-eurozone/
|
>> A bit more fuel for the fire:
>>
>> "Since the creation of the euro, Germany has run a pretty much consistent positive current
>> account balance. Germany is better off to the tune of about €1.8 trillion (£1.5 trillion)
>> since 2000.
>> But if you add together the current account balances of France, Spain and Italy over
>> the same time, they are collectively nearly €1.2 trillion in the red"
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/08/it-is-germany-itself-not-a-brexit-that-will-destroy-the-eurozone/
Ah the German plot again. I'll tell you what its a good job the Japanese are not in the EU you would have an apoplectic fit.
|
>>its a good job the Japanese are not in the EU you would have an apoplectic fit.
Give it time son, give it time - it is slowly but surely creeping Eastward with every passing year. Bit like Japanese knotweed. Once you've got it, it's damn hard to get rid of.
|
...six were from non-EU countries...
Four - Croatia is an EU country, remember, as is Romania. And all but two are currently based in the EU. Europe attracts talented people from outside precisely because they have freedom of movement and commerce here. (When we plan multinational events, we have to check where participants are travelling from in case there are visa problems; those from EU countries are never the limiting factor.) The UK benefits from that by being a member, and would risk losing that benefit by voting to leave.
My other point about the wider world is that the EU represents a critical mass of civilized values that strengthens our hand in persuading the rest of the world to adopt something similar. The countries of Eastern Europe had to improve their human rights positions in order to join, and the the EU is the principal champion of human rights in the 21st century. Canada is sound but goes unnoticed in the shadow of the US, which has the huge blemish of its judicial and penal system; Australia has a poor record on refugees; Norway and Switzerland are too small to register. India and China have a third of the world's population; who would we like them to look to for an example to follow?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sat 9 Apr 16 at 13:51
|
> The countries of Western Europe (and, latterly, the post-Soviet East) haven't gone to war -
>> or even looked like it - because shared economic interests and development leave them nothing
>> to fight about. NATO has had nothing to do with that.
>>
i Think that's a simplistic pov. The mechanism that tied them together was nato not the eu or any of its predecessors. A common enemies, in this case the WP, are quite good at binding countries together to keep the peace at the heart of that was nato.
|
...common enemies, in this case the WP...
Steady! He may be a bit slow on the uptake but he's not that bad.
}:---P
|
>> ...common enemies, in this case the WP...
>>
>> Steady! He may be a bit slow on the uptake but he's not that bad.
>>
>> }:---P
>>
I suppose we only have one on here.
|
I have some sympathy with this, CGN, but take exception to the reasoning.
Put these two statements together: "A vote either way could be either disastrous to the country, beneficial or, perhaps most likely, likely to have very little effect to our future prosperity and security one way or another."
And "... it seems to me that the pragmatic decision is to stay as we are. A leap in the unknown with only a small chance that the decision will pay off seems a risky thing to do. A bit like putting your life savings on a horse in the Grand National."
The first statement says staying in the EU or getting out are both likely to have little effect on important matters; the second, however, paints the "out" scenario as being highly risky.
You can't have it both ways.
Maybe staying as we are makes sense if you believe in the "devil you know" argument; but really we do not know that much about our future in the EU and some think that carries its own risks.
I agree that there is no "truth out there" about leaving versus staying. I'm not convinced about the risk of a fragmented Europe; I'm inclined to believe the opposite - that there is a risk associated with the "ever-closer" philosophy that is built in to the EU as a concept.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 13:21
|
Maybe simplistic but a Brexit won't bring the old Empire back.Those days are gone.
But you can't have it both ways being part of the E.U.Free trade is a plus and social policies are part of that also.We are not in Schengen or the Euro so we are already halfway in or out depending which way you look at it.
I would like the U.K to stay in the E.U but then let's be a full member.If not then go it alone whatever happens in the future.
|
David Cameron is tempting me to vote to Leave the European Union.
Because if the British vote to Leave David Cameron will have to fall on his sword and resign as Prime minister.
|
What exactly is your problem with Cameron Fluffy?
Leave aside instinctive or learned political preferences for a moment and just consider the analogy that supposing a new Managing Director had been appointed to a failing company and now that company was faring rather better.
What would you think of that individual? That he was useless, or that he might have got a few things right?
Show me any leader without flaws, I'm not totally convinced they exist.
|
>>David Cameron is tempting me to vote to Leave the European Union.
= www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLQJVKP3YlM&feature=youtu.be
:-}
|
I am tempted to vote UKIP and join the Vote Leave campaign.
I am confused and fed up what the politicians are telling me.
Can somebody convince me either way.
|
|
The "Inners" argument that the UK will have more influence in, rather than out, is perhaps to be viewed in the light of the oft claimed statement {I have not seen absolute chapter and verse proof, personally :-)} that 72 times the UK has opposed Brussels diktats and 72 times has been outvoted.
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 14:33
|
>> Can somebody convince me either way
No. Just leave it up to the politicians fluffy. They really do know better than us having the habit and more importantly, the up-to-date information in a constant flow.
Naturally we all hope they won't miscalculate and do something genuinely disastrous. It's an ever-present possibility.
|
>> I am tempted to vote UKIP and join the Vote Leave campaign.
>>
>> I am confused and fed up what the politicians are telling me.
>>
>> Can somebody convince me either way.
We in UKIP are nice people and are correct :-)
|
Thanks for the link.
I did learn a lot.
|
>>I did learn a lot.
Me too!
:-)
|
|
There are benefits due to the single market, which outweigh the 0.4% of GDP paid into the EU by the UK, less than Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands. tinyurl.com/hedzyge
|
>> There are benefits due to the single market, which outweigh the 0.4% of GDP
Or might not outweigh. That's the 64,000 Euro question, on the economic arguments.
|
Here is a link to the EFDD group (in the EU Parliament) where there is a link to a .pdf leaflet written by Nigel Farage, Co-President of the group, MEP & of course, leader of UKIP.
I'm posting the link so that you, Dear Reader, may choose to, or choose not to , have a look at some of the history behind the UK in the EU and why we "Brexiteers" believe that a "Leave" vote is desirable.
No doubt some of you will genuinely disagree with what is written: that's fine - some of you may agree, that's fine too. :-)
Neither side are "fruitcakes" - just differing from each other in this instance.
www.efddgroup.eu/newsroom/latest-news/not-worth-the-paper-the-eu-referendum-deal
|
I doubt that there is a good or a bad answer to this.
It is a matter of what type of world you wish to live in, or what type of world you think you live in.
I find country borders annoying, inconvenient and of little value. I suspect my opinion of country borders is similar in many ways to Al's view of monarchy.
However, just because I have no interest in taking a country based view, neither do I want someone else taking it for me.
So for me a much neutered and discouraged EU works.
I can quite understand the country border fanatics, I don't particularly agree, but I understand.
I less understand the full on, hand over all control to others people.
The process of leaving will probably be painful, but it will stabilise and prosper in the future. It just depends if it will be a style that appeals to you.
And out doesn't appeal to me.
But I'd stop looking for a definitive answer, because there isn't one.
|
Now the I.M.F are getting involved in our E.U. referendum campaign.
Please I.M.F do not start quoting figures.
|
>> Please I.M.F do not start quoting figures.
Funnily enough, thats their job.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 12 Apr 16 at 19:13
|
|
What I meant was " please I.M.F.do not get involved in our referendum vote debate"
|
IMF chief Christine Lagarde – currently due to stand trial over a €400 million fraud case – has been spinning overtime that Brexit will damage the UK. This is merely a geo-political courtesy return favour to Osborne who campaigned hard for her to get the IMF chief’s job.
In reality the IMF figures predict that UK growth will outpace both Germany and France as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Even the short-term initial Brexit effects are marginal, and the Bank of England will stand ready to flood liquidity into the markets in the event of Brexit, which will have a soporific effect on markets. No credible economic forecaster expects any long term negative effect on growth…
I admit it - this is a cut and paste from order-order.com
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 12 Apr 16 at 21:30
|
|
Roger you are convincing me to vote No in the E.U.referendum.
|
>> What I meant was " please I.M.F.do not get involved in our referendum vote debate"
>>
I wondered how this would be viewed in the UK, it seems (to me) to be a perfectly reasonable and legitimate for the IMF to make an assessment of the economic consequences of Brexit which are wider than just the UK. If it is inconvenient for those who wish to leave the EU that is no more unfortunate than examples of how EU migration is causing problems are to those who wish to remain.
The evaluation of the options by any voter should surely include as many perspectives as possible, it is naive to suggest that in the short, medium (or even long) term Brexit will not have economic consequences and to exclude these from your thinking because they are (very likely in my opinion, informed by such analyses) negative for all concerned is an omission.
Balancing the potential benefits of Brexit against the predicted negatives is surely the task in hand.
My views are very much like those I see expressed by NoFM2R, I choose to live abroad and travel and have no doubt that my perspective is different to those who don't. My relatives back home are 'split' on the issue largely along demographic lines I would observe.
What concerns me is this demographic split, I have said before I expect it to be close and that in the worst case an active minority will unduly influence the result for the complacent majority who actually had more at stake (their futures). I wonder how they'll feel about a little England (because Scotland and Wales will have jumped ship), beholden to EU, China and US dictat for morsels of trade, unable to travel and work freely etc etc. Just one version of the future of course. Is articulating such a scenario 'scare mongering' because it is inconvenient for those who dream of an alternative? I'd argue no more so than most of the arguments regarding immigration and sovereignty I've seen from supporters of Brexit.
|
|
Yes, I-C. Very well said.
|
Then it is up to people to be involved or show interest and if they do not you receive what you may not wish for.
It has always being the case the one who shout loudest is listened to.
|
Put very simply, the 'scaremongering' part is the statements that Brexit "could" have this that or the other consequence. That is exactly the same as saying it might not have such a consequence, or that the consequences might be something else.
I am surprised nobody has said that Brexit could result in war in Europe.
Hang on, just checked, Juncker did:
goo.gl/UD8atK (Telegraph).
|
Put very simply, the 'scaremongering' part is the statements that Remain "could" have this that or the other consequence. That is exactly the same as saying it might not have such a consequence, or that the consequences might be something else.
I am surprised nobody has said that Remain could result in 77 million Turks moving here.
Hang on, breitbart did:
www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/14/quarter-of-remain-voters-will-vote-out-if-turkey-is-granted-eu-membership/
|
Well it didn't actually, or at least it's unknown-to-me writer didn't. But it clearly is a supposedly factual but actually manufactured story (the survey) used as a hook for scaremongering.
The writer is not of course Claude Juncker or the IMF. But Aaron Banks joins in enthusiastically in quotes
"Britain’s upcoming referendum on EU membership is a vote on whether the UK wants to enter a political union with Turkey and open its borders to another 77 million people"
which is not true - that we are voting on a political union with Turkey - although it 'could' be.
The point is though that anybody can play the 'could' game, on either side of the argument.
It does however seem to be the main focus of Remain - and who can blame them, it works and I'm sure their ad and PR agencies have been telling them to do it at every opportunity. I would, and I have in different contexts.
If 'Leave' do less of it, it's only because it's harder to invent stuff that might happen if we carry on doing something we have been doing for years without it occurring.
|
>> Put very simply, the 'scaremongering' part is the statements that Brexit "could" have this that
>> or the other consequence. That is exactly the same as saying it might not have
>> such a consequence, or that the consequences might be something else.
>>
I guess my point is that when a scenario is put forward with negative implications for one side or another's position it appears to be described as scaremongering.
Weighing up the likelihood of a scenario occurring is the challenge (which should of course be applied equally to economic decline or a refugee/migrant invasion or even to suggestions of armed conflict).
I might separately observe that viewed from afar one side seems to cry 'scaremongering' more than the other when an argument or assessment doesn't suit them. That could be a facet of international reporting of course.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 11:07
|
>> Put very simply, the 'scaremongering' part is the statements that Brexit "could" have this that
>> or the other consequence. That is exactly the same as saying it might not have
>> such a consequence, or that the consequences might be something else.
No-one knows, either side, what will happen in or out. Which is why we only have the scaremongering from both sides. Its the only argument left to either of them.
|
>> I wonder how they'll feel about a little England (because Scotland and Wales will have jumped ship),
>> beholden to EU, China and US dictat for morsels of trade, unable to travel and
>> work freely etc etc. Just one version of the future of course. Is articulating such
>> a scenario 'scare mongering' because it is inconvenient for those who dream of an alternative?
>>
Don't be too sure of that. At least here in this part of Wales opinion is split just as much as it is elsewhere in the UK, and in any case where would Scotland and Wales go to? There would be no automatic right to remain in the EU and no one in their right mind would want to adopt the Euro assuming that was a condition of entry. The Welsh are very much aware that their economy is dependent on a close relationship with England, there is little or no desire to break away.
|
>> Don't be too sure of that. At least here in this part of Wales opinion
>> is split just as much as it is elsewhere in the UK, and in any
>> case where would Scotland and Wales go to?
I included Wales in my suggested scenario out of politeness, the scenario itself was exaggerated to illustrate the point. To answer your question - back the EU (it's just a possible scenario of course).
I am persuaded by the predictions of declining economic performance and political significance (possibly to the point of irrelevance) of a lonely and isolated England (perhaps with Wales for company). I don't see control over migration or even legislation as a compensatory benefit, clearly others do.
|
Well, I've read my part of the £9M leaflet campaign, What a one-sided piece of carp! (I know it's for the "in" vote), - but, what a puerile waste! - Makes me even keener to vote "out".
Was it worth £9M to you? has it "persuaded" you to think different?.
|
>> Was it worth £9M to you? has it "persuaded" you to think different?.
No and no. But why was it launched under the headline
Government responds to public desire for EU facts
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-responds-to-public-desire-for-eu-facts
|
>> Well, I've read my part of the £9M leaflet campaign, What a one-sided piece of
>> carp! (I know it's for the "in" vote), - but, what a puerile waste! -
>> Makes me even keener to vote "out".
>>
>> Was it worth £9M to you? has it "persuaded" you to think different?.
>>
I am furious that any money has been spent on this leaflet (I am a lifelong Conservative voter), so I have returned mine to their headquarters using the Freepost address enclosing a note expressing my displeasure.
|
>> (I am a
>> lifelong Conservative voter),
Has nothing to do with it, as they, the party, do not hold an opinion
>>so I have returned mine to their headquarters using the Freepost address
>> enclosing a note expressing my displeasure.
As they do not have an opinion, I am not sure what you expect them to do with it.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 16:13
|
so I have returned mine to their headquarters using the Freepost address
>> enclosing a note expressing my displeasure.
>>
I've seen a few people do that, on another forum I'd say about 20 people have or at least claimed to have.
|
For what it's worth, and we hear relatively little of it in this context, I think the biggest threat to Europe/the EU is the Euro. Germany has a runaway balance of payments surplus as a result, and other countries in the zone are running up the down escalator. There are only two cures for that, breaking the eurozone or full political union.
What it means is that the characterisation of this as change vs. no change, and the status quo bias that flows from that, is wrong. What currently exists cannot stand.
Boring, I know.
The decision we have is whether to stick together through the coming storm, or steal away in the lifeboat - which will not be able to escape the storm of course.
Neither is massively appealing but it is very hard to see which has the biggest risk attached.
What annoys me about the IMF is that if it wanted to do something useful with its resources, rather than just partisan, it could have looked at the risks of both options. Perhaps it had an eye to its objectives, and its views should be considered with that in mind:
IMF seeks to achieve the following objectives: (I) To promote international monetary cooperation. (ii) To facilitate the expansion of international trade. (iii) To ensure stability to foreign exchange rates
|
>>
supposition removed
>>
>> What annoys me about the IMF is that if it wanted to do something useful
>> with its resources, rather than just partisan, it could have looked at the risks of
>> both options. Perhaps it had an eye to its objectives, and its views should be
>> considered with that in mind:
Just as your posts are partisan and should be treated in the same light. Not having a go at you or your views, but that is all they are, opinions and views. You are no more of an economist that the rest of us, and certainly less credentials than those who are. Like the IMF for example, who at the end of the day are forecasting the only thing all of us are aware of, that leaving will cause uncertainty, and uncertainly is not liked by those with or control money.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 12:49
|
>> Just as your posts are partisan and should be treated in the same light.
I think the IMF expects more weight to be attached its opinion than I do to mine.
I'm certainly subjective, but I wouldn't say I am partisan. Maybe I am in that I despise the Remain lobby more than the Leave one.
I genuinely haven't made up my mind which result would be the lesser evil. I loathe the fundamental dishonesty of the EU project but I would not wish to break up the UK, and I think the consequences of the EU's problems will affect us anyway.
The quality of information from both campaigns is dreadful. Leave's is just poor, Remain's is IMO more frequently dishonest and there's more of it, but there isn't much to choose
>>the IMF for example, who at end of the day are forecasting the only thing all of us are aware of,
>> that leaving will cause uncertainty, and uncertainly is not liked by those with or control
>> money.
As usual we are in violent agreement. They have added nothing useful to the debate.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 13:34
|
>> I'm certainly subjective, but I wouldn't say I am partisan.
I would. I just did. I think I am not mind you.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 16:27
|
The decision about the official groups has been made. There might be a few legal challenges yet.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36038672
|
>> The decision about the official groups has been made. There might be a few legal
>> challenges yet.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36038672
poor old nige can't even get on board his fav horse, because he is a liability.
|
Statement from UKIP Leader Nigel Farage on EU Referendum Designation.
UK Independence Party (UKIP)·Wednesday, 13 April 2016.
I congratulate Vote Leave on getting designation.
The decision of UKIP to back Grassroots Out was on the basis that they saw the importance of the immigration issue in this referendum, and that we wanted to reach out across the country at a grassroots level and work with everyone from the left, centre and right of British politics to get our country out of the EU. I believe this approach is the only way the Leave side can win this referendum.
It is clear that Vote Leave now share my view on this approach, for instance the issue of EU open borders is now a prominent part of their campaign messaging.
Regardless of whichever campaign got the designation, UKIP would always have played a big role in this campaign as the only national party committed to leaving the EU and with a substantial £4 million spending limit.
I have always wanted all on the Leave side to come together and have done my best to try and make this happen. I'll continue to do so in the run up to the referendum to ensure the Leave side wins.
We in UKIP, as I've said from the start, will work with anyone that wants to leave the EU. We must work together to get our country out of the European Union.
Nigel Farage
UKIP Leader
|
...we wanted to reach out across the country at a grassroots level...
Difficult to do that without being flat on your face. Oh, hang on...
|
From Roger's link:
"...the bottom line is that, as a German and as a liberal, I would prefer the UK remain and continue to contribute constructively to European unification."
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff - Vice-President of the European Parliament.
I suggest Lambsdorff is far from alone in this sentiment: European unification - in every sense - is what the EU is all about.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 22:07
|
|
And whose translation from the German is that?
|
Looks like a Google job to me.
Trotzdem: Unter dem Strich, als Deutscher und als Liberaler, sage ich: Mir wäre es lieber, Großbritannien bliebe dabei und würde sich in Zukunft konstruktiv in die europäische Einigung einbringen.
It's that word 'Einigung'. Yes, 'unification' is one translation, but so are 'agreement' and 'settlement', either of which would fit the current state of negotiations, but don't serve the purposes of the Euro-snake hunters nearly so well.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Wed 13 Apr 16 at 22:43
|
"It's that word 'Einigung'. Yes, 'unification' is one translation, but so are 'agreement' and 'settlement', either of which would fit the current state of negotiations, but don't serve the purposes of the Euro-snake hunters nearly so well."
We can argue over the accuracy or otherwise of the translation and over what the guy meant on this occasion.
However, does anyone seriously doubt that the goal of the European Project - in the minds of its prime movers, anyway - is unification? The EU is not conceived of as a static thing - it is moving towards a target and the assumption is that the greatest good of its citizens is best served by the closer and close alignment of economic, legal and political aspects of its member states.
Some will say that in practice this is all vague, or that it's "merely" an aspiration. But to many UK citizens it is deeply troubling and represents an erosion - a potential loss rather than a gain.
|
|
Einigung in this context means agreement that is what the Germans would like.
|
We can argue over the accuracy or otherwise of the translation and over what the guy meant on this occasion.
You make it sound trivial, but if we take the translation Dutchie recommends, your 'unification' argument falls flat on its face.
However, does anyone seriously doubt that the goal of the European Project - in the minds of its prime movers, anyway - is unification?
Yes, me for one. It may have been mooted 40+ years ago, when the Community had six or nine members but if it was a serious plan it would have happened by now. Instead, the emphasis shifted with the fall of Communism (which nobody even in the 1980s really saw coming) to inclusivity, extending the benefits of harmonization and open markets as far across Europe as possible.
With 28 member states to convince, the kind of political 'unification' some - including some here - want to make us afraid of - is a near-impossibility.
|
"You make it sound trivial, but if we take the translation Dutchie recommends, your 'unification' argument falls flat on its face."
Not sure why it seemed I was making it trivial; the word is open to various shades of meaning and I was suggesting one might look elsewhere for evidence of unification. And why would the interpretation offered by one member of the forum (whose first language is neither English nor German) make my argument fall flat on its face?
However, you may well be right about unification - in practice - so far. The phrase "ever-closer union" dates from the Stuttgart Treaty of 1983 when the EU had ten members (including the UK). Since then, there has been much pluralism amongst its member states. (Interestingly, when Poland joined, it was strongly opposed to adopting the euro, on the grounds that the złoty had important historical and symbolic significance, rather like the pound.)
Nevertheless, the perception of a significant proportion of the UK population today is that unification is a real threat. Otherwise, why would Cameron's recent negotiations place so much emphasis on the need for the UK to be exempt from "ever-closer union"?
Certainly, further "harmonisation" of taxes, of laws, of regulations emanating from Brussels will be seen by some as creeping unification.
So, like most arguments for and against staying in the EU, it's slippery. Either the EU is about unification or it is not and never was; unification is a either a practical driving force or a vague aspiration.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Thu 14 Apr 16 at 08:55
|
>> unification is a either
>> a practical driving force or a vague aspiration.
Or merely harmonisation of trade and commerce.
|
>> Or merely harmonisation of trade and commerce.
There's no merely about it for the countries that have tied their exchange rates together.
|
>> With 28 member states to convince, the kind of political 'unification' some - including some
>> here - want to make us afraid of - is a near-impossibility.
The poorer countries haven't much to lose, but yes, it might be difficult.
The problem is that it is essential for the eurozone, unless the eurozone breaks.
This has been predicted for years and hasn't happened, so it's easy to dismiss, but tying together the exchange rates and interest rates of separate countries has resulted in a continuing embedded trade surplus for Germany, and high unemployment in countries with a broadly similar basic standard of living (Spain, Italy, Portugal for example) that cannot match Germany's productivity.
Ben Bernanke last year:
www.brookings.edu/blogs/ben-bernanke/posts/2015/04/03-germany-trade-surplus-problem
|
In simple language the Germans would have to lower their standard of living.Inport more stuff they don't want and be nice about it.
Can't see that happening Mr Bernanke.
|
Why would the Germans lower their standard of living to keep the rest of Europe happy.
I do not know what the statistic is but do not the Germans export more to Britain than we export to Germany.
You can see why the Germans want Britain to remain in the E.U.
|
The Germans in the 1920s was a bankrupt state.
They went through a horrifying period of hyper-inflation.
The economy was in tatters.
Unemployment was soaring and out of control.
No wonder the Germans are obsessive about inflation.
Low inflation leads to low interest rates and rapid economic growth.
And that is what the Germans experienced in the miracle 1950s.
|
"Low inflation leads to low interest rates and rapid economic growth."
Well, the UK has had pretty low inflation and very low interest rates for a while now.
Not so sure about the rapid economic growth.
|
I think if policy makers believe we can have low inflation then maybe, just maybe our economy can grow by 5% plus a year.
If the Germans can do it so can we.
We came out of two World Wars a bankrupt state and since then we have a chance to match anything the Germans achieved after the end of World War Two.
|
|
What are you trying to say , Roger.
|
|
I didn't think it would be long until we got a hook question.
|
|
I am sticking to the script.
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 - Volume 9 - Dutchie
