***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 12 *****
=============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 May 16 at 10:18
|
|
this objection to the us president speaking is it because he speaks out and isn't british or because he doesn't share your view? If he said we should leave the eu would you support him speaking his mind?
|
...you doubt that Britain could succeed and indeed thrive economically after exiting the European Union...
I don't; we'd get by as we did before we had the advantage of the Single Market. But it would take years of work and negotiation even to get back to a position equivalent to the one we have today, with no guarantees that we ever would.
As for 'faith in our country', that's setting up a false dichotomy - although not quite as distasteful as Rog wrapping himself in the flag this afternoon. (Please wash it before you put it back, Rog.) We can all want to achieve the best for our own country without requiring it to be at the expense of others. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts; that's what markets are all about.
|
>>The whole is greater than the sum of the parts; that's what markets are all about.
I'm all in favour of markets Will. I think a common market of European trading nations would be a great idea, we could even call it the European Economic Community.
I just don't want Great Britain to remain part of the European Union *in its present form* having unelected bureaucrats telling us what to do and how to live our lives.
But of course it's not just Brexiters like me who are sick and tired of the ailing EU. There are ever increasing numbers of like-minded people in many if not most of the other EU member countries who are far from happy with the way the project is being run so, as I've said before, if we vote to remain on the 23rd of June, that's the end of it, and the EU crats will have got us where they want us. But if we vote out. there's a chance for further negotiation and reform of the EU - to the benefit of all the 28 member states.
|
That seems to be Boris's argument too and it doesn't work for him either.
As for
...unelected bureaucrats telling us what to do and how to live our lives
I'm curious about this. I'd bet I'm more engaged with the rest of Europe, day to day, than all but a tiny handful here. Yet I've never encountered these 'bureaucrats', nor been told by one how to live my life. I do, however, see the benefit of the Single Market every time I travel, or pick up the phone to ask a supplier to deliver products in ten EU countries at once, all without customs charges or - ahem - bureaucracy.
So who, here, personally, can tell of a direct experience they've had that has been caused or aggravated by an 'unelected bureaucrat'?
|
"Yet I've never encountered these 'bureaucrats', nor been told by one how to live my life."
These, presumably, are the bureaucrats:
"The term Commission is used either in the narrow sense of the 28-member College of Commissioners (or College) or to also include the administrative body of about 23,000 European civil servants..." (Wikipedia)
None of these is directly elected by the citizens of the EU.
I imagine many of the things you have had direct experience of originate with these people.
"What does the Commission do?
Proposes new laws
The Commission is the sole EU institution tabling laws for adoption by the Parliament and the Council that:
protect the interests of the EU and its citizens on issues that can't be dealt with effectively at national level;
get technical details right by consulting experts and the public.
Manages EU policies & allocates EU funding
Sets EU spending priorities, together with the Council and Parliament.
Draws up annual budgets for approval by the Parliament and Council.
Supervises how the money is spent, under scrutiny by the Court of Auditors.
Enforces EU law
Together with the Court of Justice, ensures that EU law is properly applied in all the member countries.
Represents the EU internationally
Speaks on behalf of all EU countries in international bodies, in particular in areas of trade policy and humanitarian aid." (from europa.eu)
|
|
Interesting that the accounts have not had a full and agreed audit in the last 22 years.
|
>>So who, here, personally, can tell of a direct experience they've had that has been caused or aggravated by an 'unelected bureaucrat'
Me.
DSO, MobileTV, Broadcasting, DCMS, Ofcom, UKTI, etc. etc. So many many more.
With the exception of one or two irritating personalities the only difference between them and our own was the address. Most of it was just noise, on the rare occasions they actually did something, it was usually a reasonable thing to do.
I cannot think of a single occasion where a European bureaucrat stood in the way of anything reasonable.
They occasionally frustrated the UK's wish to follow its own isolationist path, and were usually correct to do so, especially when dealing with the idiots at the BBC.
Equally, I have worked across Europe with many partners able to take a unified approach and shift individual bureaucrats in individual countries into doing something sensible by slapping them with a European hand.
Why anybody would think that European bureaucrats are any better or worse than British bureaucrats is beyond me.
I guess that unlike Rodgy whose only experience with Europe is losing money, I have frequently seen many companies making money and in fact surviving only because of their ability to move across Europe and the advantage that gives them over non EU countries. In my experience it is a convenience and a benefit for larger companies, but it is absolutely life changing for smaller companies and startups.
Unlike the lemmings here, I have actually done this stuff rather than just looked at pictures of it in the Daily Wail.
In fact, I don't think I know a single small business man who trades across Europe that thinks the EU is a bad idea. On the other hand, the failed and hopeless....
It seems to me it is the no-hopers and those with ulterior motives who are the most desperate to leave.
|
"So who, here, personally, can tell of a direct experience they've had that has been caused or aggravated by an 'unelected bureaucrat'?"
Me. I have been brought out of retirement to assist in solving a dreadful example of EU green-tinged, pseudo (bad) science that any fifth-former could have picked holes in.
|
"Do tell, HW."
I will - in due course.
|
|
Of course, as you know, the Haldane principle means that research decisions in the UK are not made by elected politicians. So would your example have been any different post-Brexit?
|
"So would your example have been any different post-Brexit?"
Yes.
|
If the country wasn't so divided it would be easy to predict the way the referendum is going to go.
It could be a anti conservative vote mixed in the basket.Interesting times.
|
I think the referendum vote will be 51% to remain in the E.U and 49% to leave.
I believe the result will be that close.
|
It's interesting that Obama thinks that the American contribution towards winning the war entitles her to intervene in the current EU debate.
How strange that he doesn't similarly support Russias's right to an influence in Europe, given that country's far greater effort and suffering in the war than any other of the allies.
|
The Americans did not get involved in W.W.1 until 1917.
In W.W.2 they got involved only in 1942.
I agree with your point of view.
The Russians lost more war dead than the Americans.
|
|
am I the only one just voicing FO f all too frequently?
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Sat 23 Apr 16 at 18:42
|
No!
I have stopped responding to his ridiculous posts. Answering them is not compulsory.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 23 Apr 16 at 18:56
|
How strange that he doesn't similarly support Russias's right to an influence in Europe...
He didn't talk in terms of just winning the war; his point was that, having won it, America contributed hugely to ensuring that Western Europe was rebuilt on free and democratic principles, because that was what the tens of thousands had given their lives for. The EU today is the embodiment and guarantor of those principles. Stalin then and Putin now haven't had quite the same priorities.
|
Stalin then and Putin
>> now haven't had quite the same priorities.
>>
Of course. It was TIC as you realise.
But Obama was also aluding to the degree of sacrifice of the combatants, which is a little uncomfortable given the Russian blood contribution.
And not forgetting that it was the Japanese who persuaded America to join the war, and Hitler who ensured American involvement in Europe by pointlessly declaring war.
|
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/22/barack-obama-our-fair-weather-friend-is-wrong-about-the-eu/
If Obama thinks the EU is such a good idea, how come the USA has not applied to join? For a start, its entry would be facilitated by its familiarity with English and Spanish. It would also save tedious wrangles over TTIP.
|
}:---)
Joking aside, for one thing it would have to meet the EU standard on human rights. That would be incompatible with its position on the death penalty. Obama himself may be progressive and outward looking but he has a heavy load of God-and-guns regressive baggage back home.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Tue 26 Apr 16 at 11:10
|
>> }:---)
>>
>> Joking aside, for one thing it would have to meet the EU standard on human
>> rights.
Yes there's a long way to go with all sorts of things. Inter alia, the septics pretend not to understand Europeans' attachment to protected designation of origin for food such as Parma ham, Melton Mowbray pies, or Cornish pasties.
|
Obama's comments don't really add up as a genuine concern for Britain. And in fact he would be derelict in his duty if he did not put US interests first, which I'm sure he has.
A lot of people here and in the rest of the EU are worried about TTIP, especially its ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) provisions, with good reason in my opinion.
Didn't Philip Morris sue Australia over plain packaging for cigarettes, under a similar provision under its trade treaty with Hong Kong? I haven't looked to see what happened with that, but I don't think it's the kind of policy in which companies should hold sway over governments.
Fortunately all 28 countries have to agree on it which currently seems unlikely unless ISDS is removed or substantially curtailed, but I take limited comfort from that; all sorts of inducements (support for for Cameron in the referendum?) and coercion will be used to try and keep in in. The Americans are extremely attached to it, and feign surprise that not everybody agrees.
ISDS aside, TTIP is supposedly a greater-than-zero-sum game in which we all get richer. Well, some people get richer. All sorts of things would get 'harmonised' - I can't imagine there will be much upside for the workers, the standard of UK television programming, or the quality of cheese on sale:)
|
Aha...another reason for Obama to cuddle up to Cameron.
goo.gl/OO06tk
(Independent - "TTIP: UK Government found trade deal had 'lots of risk and no benefit' in its only assessment")
|
Why Obama really wants Britain to stay in the EU…
www.rt.com/uk/340605-ttip-obama-uk-visit/
|
Whatever Obama wants, Britain's interests are not on his list.
Does anyone seriously think they are?
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Sat 23 Apr 16 at 19:26
|
|
The special relationship is a British fantasy.
|
|
However common interests aren't
|
|
They are carefully managed by both sides.
|
The US is such a big country most states are bigger than the U.K.Each state is a country in its own right.
Plenty of Americans couldn't find Europe on a map never mind the UK.Which is understandable if you never have or want to go abroad as a American.
I can't see President Putin being that bothered if the UK leaves the E.U or not.The Russians lost 20 million people in WW2 not to be sniffed at.Let's not keep going on about the war which happened over 70 years ago.There have been enough wars after the big one it is never ending.
|
>> The US is such a big country most states are bigger than the U.K.Each state
>> is a country in its own right.
>>
>>>>
Each state has a lot of autonomy, but is nowhere near being an independent nation.
|
Like I said before, a semi competent LEAVE campaign would have lined up a Head of State to tell us he/she would welcome signing a Trade Treaty quickly when we leave the EC.
The fact they have not been able to do so, or did not think of it says all you need to know about them.
|
>> Like I said before, a semi competent LEAVE campaign would have lined up a Head
>> of State to tell us he/she would welcome signing a Trade Treaty quickly when we
>> leave the EC.
That is never going to happen and it would be naive to think otherwise, you don't go into a negotiation of any kind saying that the other party will get everything it desires even if you know that you are likely to end up giving the shirt off your back and being bent over with your trousers off.
>>
>> The fact they have not been able to do so, or did not think of
>> it says all you need to know about them.
No it doesn't, see above. What you would hope is that nobody says "there is no chance of us giving UK anything near the terms with us that the EU has". Has that happened? I don't know.
|
"
That is never going to happen and it would be naive to think otherwise, you don't go into a negotiation of any kind saying that the other party will get everything it desires even if you know that you are likely to end up giving the shirt off your back and being bent over with your trousers off."
True but I would have thought Leave could have found a former head of State to support them. Obviously not.
(Mind you, Farage would insult them anyway and upset them...Can you imagine him trying to negotiate? Even worse than teh former Greek Finance Minister)
|
I've read all I can on here about various opinions, I read the Press and listen to as much as possible of Today in Parliament and I'm no further forward because of one simple word.....trust.
We spent a lot of time together in the car this weekend and the conversation (mainly due to boredom turned to do we Brexit or not!
We both favour brexit but have serious doubts that we have all the facts to make a proper, informed decision.
We arrived in Belgium to see someone who we'd come to think of as a friend, but who yesterday treated us as the enemy, telling us we need them (Europe) and we should stay.
I reminded them I'd known the UK before it was part of Europe and we'd managed just fine but that alienated us even further.
....and provoked further conversation on the way back:)
Conclusions:
We need an independent person to state the facts who isn't biased in any way to one side or the other.
We need a middle ground political party to take the good from the right and the left and give us some hope they can be honest and have our best interests at heart and not their own.
If someone other than Cameron could represent us in Europe, and negotiate for us, we could both easily be persuaded to stay in.
.....sadly, there are so many people like us.
Pat
|
>> We both favour brexit but have serious doubts
Can't help wondering why Pat.
I am the other way inclined and will vote that way. We are Europeans, semi-detached... but frog and k**** and jumble alla same when the dust seckle innit?
|
I heard someone from this group - which requires its researchers to be demonstrably impartial, with all interests declared annually - on R4 this morning and was impressed. I want to spend some more time on their site but I've found some good stuff already:
fullfact.org/europe/leaveremain-facts-behind-claims/
Start with the article on the membership fee and work out from there, I suggest.
|
I'd be very interested to see if Pat, or anyone will be willing to change their natural inclination on the matter after looking at that site, WDB.
And I think that's what it will come down to for most people. Many are crying out for "facts", but I'll wager if the "facts" don't support their innate feelings/inclinations on the way to vote, then they will be disregarded. Which is fine of course, no criticism implied.
I changed my position on Brexit after all - only this was many years ago, once it was clear the UK would never join the Euro. Once that danger was in the past, then "Remain" was the best policy IMHO. Before that date, I'd have voted "Out" in a heartbeat.
|
Thanks WdeB, that's my early morning reading for tomorrow morning!
Pat
|
>>Thanks WdeB, that's my early morning reading for tomorrow morning!
And not a bad way to spend your time.
Unfortunately by and large it points out that both sides are talking garbage, especially when quoting "facts" and nobody is all that sure what will happen.
If you're looking for definitive statements you are likely to be disappointed.
|
>>We both favour brexit but have serious doubts that we have all the facts to make a proper, informed decision.
If anybody has doubts about whether to vote to remain in, or leave, what will eventually become a European super state, where our laws will be dictated to us by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, surely tis wise to err on the side of caution, and vote to leave.
This is our last chance, and if we don't leave the mess, which is the European Union, the crats will have Great Britain by the short and curlies, of that I am sure.
The following quote is often attributed to *Jean Monnet; in fact it is a paraphrase of a characterization of Monnet's intentions by British Conservative Adrian Hilton:
"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation"
*The chief architect of the European project.
Last edited by: Dog on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 16:28
|
We both feel that Cameron held all the ace cards to negotiate a deal which would have seen a firm remain vote not only from us both, but the vast majority of other people who are dithering, and blew it big time.
The feeling that he may resign with a brexit vote looks attractive, but by then we'll be out so it's not that easy Dog.
Incidentally, I realise the days of buying my ciggies and wine in bulk at super cheap prices will be gone too, but I'm trying to put that aside and look at the future!
Pat
|
>> We both feel that Cameron held all the ace cards to negotiate a deal which
>> would have seen a firm remain vote not only from us both, but the vast
>> majority of other people who are dithering, and blew it big time.
His hand was weakened by fact that during his first term he put no effort into forming relationships with other European leaders. Indeed he seemed at times to go out of his way to p*** them off, not least by his use of the veto in 2011.
|
>> We both feel that Cameron held all the ace cards to negotiate a deal
There we differ. He had no aces or picture cards at all, since it isn't really on for any member state to have the bun and the halfpenny when another half dozen or dozen could also pop up and demand the same or different individual privileges and exemptions.
I'm surprised that the qualitative argument that we would have more influence within the EU, and that we can use it to change it from within, is accepted so easily. We have 8% of the votes in the European parliament.
As an non-member, it would be much less of a problem for the EU to accommodate the UK where it is to the advantage of the EU (whose members, on average, sell more to us than we do to them) despite the blatant misrepresentation of the numbers by the government's 'facts' leaflet.
Against that, set the undoubted convenience of a customs-free zone.
It will undoubtedly be much less effort in the short term to stay in. Brexit will almost certainly create some volatility in markets and perhaps renewed efforts by the EU to usurp our position in financial services (not that it hasn't tried while we have been members). Financial services IMO is the biggest risk in Brexit, since all passporting rights would be lost. Many London-based banks or fund managers already have EU-incorporated subsidiaries outside the UK, but others would have to create them, and perhaps some would not consider it worth having a UK and an EU base, and would up sticks from London.
On the other hand - the EU's Tobin tax proposals have not gone away. There is probably zero chance that an independent UK would introduce it, and at least it would have the choice. Other EU members with little to lose have been quite keen on it. While ever the prospect of it popping up again exists, will the big firms risk the costs of moving from London completely?
A drop in sterling would be a curate's egg, making imports expensive, creating inflation (bad for me, good for public debt and other borrowers), increasing interest rates, possibly creating a housing market crash which will knacker the banks again but will happen sometime, but could be great for exporters.
Throw in the Euro problem of course, which must eventually resolve (but how?) and which will affect the UK economy, in or out.
How to quantify and balance all this is the difficulty, and we are getting no help from people who have taken one side or the other.
If it's too artificial to try and solve the question by pure calculation, there remains the 'principle' of international cooperation vs isolationism, but even there the balance of the arguments is unclear. Most of the world is not in the EU; and the EU at times seems a very inward-looking, isolationist club itself.
Perhaps the difficulty arises because of the simple assumption that we have binary outcomes. The reality is that there is more than one kind of out, and more than one kind of in. Good and bad outcomes are possible with both options. Anybody informed, who tells us that one or the other has to be a disaster, probably knows they are lying.
|
Good stuff, Dog. Presumably, as with any level-headed Brexiter, the froth comes out of both sides of your mouth at once.
}:---)
Monnet, for the uninitiated, died in 1979. His last public appointment ended in 1955. I'm not sure what a 'paraphrase of a characterization' of something he may or may not have actually thought - in a different language - adds to our debate now.
|
No, it adds nothing new, an old chestnut, although it is still a fairly good description of how the EU has got to where it is, and to the extent that it's true it confirms that the unification objective is not new.
Unification can work of course, and makes more sense than fragmentation (the SNP seems to want both), as can a simple free trade area within separate currencies. But what we have is neither fish nor fowl which is why I am hesitating.
|
Incidentally, I had to look up Adrian Hilton. Turns out he's not even eminent enough to have a Wikipedia entry, but he seems to be a present-day Mail columnist and Conservative Home hack, who may just have been at school by the time Monnet died. What insight this gives him into Monnet's views and intentions - let alone the right to 'characterize' on his behalf - is anyone's guess.
Dog?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 17:05
|
Jean Monnet, an early and impassioned European.
After being driven for some miles by Edward Heath, a terrifying driver by many accounts, he emerged from the car pale and shaken, saying: 'We'll never be able to make socialism with these people' (or words to that effect).
|
Does anyone else find the word 'brexit' as annoying and smug-modern as I do?
Sounds like some sort of sugary glittering breakfast cereal to make you fat and give you diabetes. Irresistible those are, and you have to eat them fast before they go soggy.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 17:41
|
>>Does anyone else find the word 'brexit' as annoying and smug-modern as I do?
Yes. Extremely.
|
No I like the word " brexit"
It means what the word says.
British exit.
|
>> No I like the word " brexit"
>>
>> It means what the word says.
>>
>> British exit.
>>
I presume that a man of your "university" education will be fully aware that such a word is termed a portmanteau; which of course, with wonderful irony, is French.
|
Never mind the French,plenty of Dutch voters are not happy in the E.U.
Unelected bureaucrats in Brussel.When the Euro came in salaries where halved and prices went up.1 Euro is 2 Gulden in supposed value.
I can't blame the Brits for leaving,my problem is I don't trust this lousy government.
|
Salaries halved, Dutchie? Are you sure?
As for 'I can't blame the Brits for leaving', that's more than a little premature.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 18:00
|
>> When the Euro came in salaries where halved and prices went up.1
>> Euro is 2 Gulden in supposed value.
I think that was fairly common perception in other euro countries, although I don't know the truth of it.
I was back and forth to Italy in the early 2000s, and that seemed to be the perception there following the introduction of the Euro - i.e. what had cost 1000 lire before, now cost 1 euro, and I heard the euro referred to as the "caro" (dear). The actual conversion rate was nearer 2000 lire to the euro.
|
De Nederlandsche Bank's report from the time suggests an effect on retail prices of 0.2-0.4%, mainly because of rounding. (People I talked to in France in the changeover year, 2002, said something similar.)
I suspect Dutchie is mistaking a halving of the number (a monthly salary of 2,000 guilders becoming 1,000 euro) for a halving of buying power. Plainly that didn't happen, because it would have driven even the easy-going Nederlanders to mutiny.
|
>>Dog?
I’m finished with it Will: I wont post again on this subject as I now feel sure the outcome will unfortunately be to stay in the straight jacket of the European Union, run by fat cat bureaucrats.
The British people have the choice whether to vote for freedom, or more Europe, leading to federalisation (The act of exerting control) If the they don’t vote to leave the European Union, now the opportunity is there, those who vote to stay in, deserve to stay in, so they can see what an asinine decision they made in face of the *facts.
*There are no facts, only interpretations :)
~Nietzsche
|
At Roger really -
What's your stance on immigration from EU countries whatever position the country finds itself after the referendum ?
|
before deciding let me ask do we benefit being in europe?? There something called ttip if you google it meaning govt owned orgsnistations are required to be open up, to private investors, meaning NHS.
Am sure that a full information on whether to join or not is essential, the question i ask is who is to gain being in the euro and out?
|
|
Sorry, I don't think I quite grasp the question. Could you explain a bit more please.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 25 Apr 16 at 18:52
|
So its about the privatisation of our National Health Service.
What horror!
|
>> So its about the privatisation of our National Health Service.
Not really.
Simplistically, since that would seem appropriate, it is about the process if you wish to "un privatise" something and the implication that your erstwhile providers may have a claim against you if you do it wrong.
Given your difficulty with these agreements i honestly think that the implications of this one are far beyond you.
If you genuinely wish to learn about it then try to remember, research first then spout opinions.
|
I know it is far beyond me.
But why frighten people as part of the talking.
I considered private finance initiate was just the same as slow privatisation by the back door.
We spend about 8% of our G.D.P on health care.
The Americans spend over 15% as a comparison.
If you do not believe me go to Wikepedia and type up global health spending per country.
|
>We spend about 8% of our G.D.P on health care.
The Americans spend over 15% as a comparison.
Well you're wrong, but not that badly, its more like 9% and 17%.
However, how is that spending impacted by;
Population age and health profile
Cost of medicines and other treatments
Medical staff costs
Health Care system overheads
Relative required profit margins
and sooo much more.
With that in mind, what is your point about the comparative spending rates? Simply that the US spends more?
|
Japan spend less than the Americans on health care but live longer.
Can someone explain why that is.
I need help.
|
>> Japan spend less than the Americans on health care but live longer.
>>
>> Can someone explain why that is.
>>
Because Americans eat about four times as much as the Japanese, and a lot of what they eat is junk.
|
|
...and their medical system is essentially commercial: a lot of people expect to make a profit out of medicine.
|
|
Including American outfits, if TTIP succeeds. This treaty is beginning to give me more jitters than the EU.
|
You'r not the only one ambo.Negotiations are done without any of us are having a say in TTIP.
I am all for free trade if it benefits the people regarding jobs and security.
I hope I be proved wrong but I can see the N.H.S moving slowly to a more private insurance based institution.
|
|
The British will not tolerate a private insurance based health system.
|
|
We may think we are sitting pretty in the EU, supposedly getting all the benefits without being signed up to the Euro or Schengen and whatever else, but all it takes at some point in the future is one either weak or excessively pro European PM to ease us into something we'll never get out of.
|
>> one either weak or excessively pro European PM to ease us into something we'll never get out of.
What, getting us entangled with all those ghastly foreigners you mean, Germans and Latins of every stripe?
How ghastly! Surely nothing like that could ever happen. Not here.
|
|
Now I think you know what I mean AC.
|
Yes I do. That's why I'm teasing you.
Quite gently though. I mean no disrespect. Not much anyway.
|
It does seem to have the nature of a ratchet.
We have the opportunity to escape with one bound, but little way of knowing where we will end up whether we do or not.
Out, we will have our own choice of stormy seas and rocks on which to founder. In, we will have the consolation that at least our neighbours are in the same boat:)
|
There was a discussion the other night on the television about security the in or out debate.I never realised how much the UK budget is on defense one of the highest in Europe.
One of the spokesperson mentioned about the strength of the UK army and how weak the rest are in Europe.
I would be carefull with statements like that.It wouldn't take much for the Germans to build up a military might if they so wished.History can repeat itself it all depends on the leader of a country which nobody can predict.
If we see the E.U as a shackle on our legs then get out.No half measures and mean it.Otherwise stay in and play ball with the rest.>:)
|
|
Some of the latest Defence spending figures apparently take into account some stuff that was previously elsewhere, such as MOD pension provision - helps to hit that magical 2% GDP I guess.
|
We spend 2% of our national wealth on defence.
Thats according to the Treasury.
I would not be happy if the Germans did the same.
|
|
Latest polls indicate a slight advantage to the "remain" camp. Article in one of the Sunday heavies suggests that there may be a surge in older voters voting "out". I would sincerely encourage younger voters to get out and vote. They are the ones most likely to be affected by the referendum 's outcome.
|
|
I rather think that like in the General Election the polls have it a bit wrong. I suspect that thet the remain vote will be around 55%
|
I still don't have a reasoned opinion as to which option is "best". I suspect that the answer is that either option can be made the best of with the necessary adjustments.
I am dismayed by the way in which each camp smears the other - but especially by the repeated implication that outies are somehow racist, or little Englanders.
I am considering having a 'conference' on this with my adult (31 & 35) children and casting my vote based on their views if they can articulate them convincingly (they will), as they are the ones who will have to live with it.
|
Incidentally, there was a mildly interesting piece on the excellent BBC R4 "More or Less" programme this week, on net migration numbers.
IIRC of the c. 320,000 reported from the last full year, around 170,000 were from the EU. Of those, maybe half wouldn't have met the criteria that the other 150,000 non-EU had to meet. Breaking net number down that way doesn't seem to be logical to me so I'll have to listen to it again, but what surprised me (and probably shouldn't have) is the way that these numbers are counted.
I imagined it to be a fairly complex gathering of data extracts from various systems brought together. Apparently not. It is based on surveys of people travelling through airports and on ferries etc, asking them where they are going, where from, and whether they are planning to stay! It does not match up in any way with other data such as NI numbers issued, although I can see why it wouldn't anyway.
I didn't really catch it all owing to interruptions from the phone but I got the impression that nobody can really know what is happening - something that could presumably be addressed whether we are in out of the EU, although being able to change it might depend on being out.
|
>> Incidentally, there was a mildly interesting piece on the excellent BBC R4 "More or Less"
>> programme this week, on net migration numbers.
I think that 'More or Less' is interesting most weeks.
|
>> Article in one of the
>> Sunday heavies suggests that there may be a surge in older voters voting "out". I
>> would sincerely encourage younger voters to get out and vote. They are the ones most
>> likely to be affected by the referendum 's outcome.
>>
And what do younger voters know that we older ones don't? There seems top be a belief that "Outers" are taking a short term selfish view because we won't be around to pick up the mess. On the contrary, we are voting out because we believe that in the long run we will be better off out of a deteriorating shambles that may well implode under the weight of the Micky Mouse economies that the richer nations are having to bail out. We accept there may even (But not definitely) be a short term hit, but remember that many of the people referred to as oldies will have two, three or even four decades left to put up with the consequences. So a bit less eulogising the young as some sort of saintly presence on the planet please, many of them form their views on what is "In" on Facebook or Instagram anyway.
|
I was pleasantly surprised yesterday by the number of oldies who stopped to chat and who 'got' the benefits of international fellowship - and were prepared to be stickered with an 'I'm In' to prove it. (Yes, all right, I'm a signed-up In volunteer now.)
Of the younger ones, many needed no persuading and expressed good understanding and the need to get their friends out to vote too. A few admitted that they were confused by the conflicting arguments and statistics and were happy to have the most heinous Out arguments demolished and to be pointed towards impartial sources for clarification on the rest. Several wavering Outies, of all generations, chatted openly and went away clearly thinking harder about what they'd been fed from the Out camp. A good morning's work, I thought.
I only met one true swivel-eye, who was 82 (he said) and went off on a long ramble about how Obama couldn't be trusted because America stole all our money after WW2 - or something; it was rather hard to follow. He's an Outie, of course.
|
>> I was pleasantly surprised yesterday by the number of oldies who stopped to chat and
>> who 'got' the benefits of international fellowship
I dare say they were in favour of motherhood and apple pie as well.
It's the constant implication that Innies have a monopoly on "international fellowship" that is specious.
One of the problems I have is reconciling that international view with continued EU membership.
Globalisation is here, with or without the EU.
It is the EU that looks to me like an inward looking institution, and its functionaries appear to have internalised its protocols at the expense of the members' interests.
The member governments themselves revert to self interest when the chips are down, as with the refugee crisis and the financial meltdown. The Commission and Councils will be largely focused on internal wranglings and sorting out the self-inflicted wound that is the euro for some time to come.
The other highly questionable and frequent claim that we will have more leverage if we are in it than out of it.
Where are the substantive arguments for In? Anybody. Please.
|
>> It's the constant implication that Innies have a monopoly on "international fellowship" that is specious.
As is the constant mention of older people not really having the right to vote 'out' because they will leave the young to pick up the alleged mess.
I will be voting on behalf of my children as they are too young to vote or care. Their welfare now and for the future is a high priority.
If I genuinely thought it was better for me personally now, to vote 'out'.....but... better for them in the long run to vote 'in'... I would seriously consider voting 'in'........ because I am well able and capable of looking at the long term view.... and the long term good of this country has always been my thought process.
As it happens, I think the opposite, IMO an 'out' vote could mean short or medium term drop backwards, but a long term gain... and the sovereignty issue plays strongly in my mind.
|
It's the constant implication that Innies have a monopoly on "international fellowship" that is specious.
Perhaps if the Outers' case didn't rely so heavily on calling our international friends 'corrupt' and 'undemocratic' I might have some sympathy, Manatee.
One thing we've learned about globalization is that big trading units cope better in global markets than small players. Look at the relative global profiles of similarly-sized neighbours Sweden and Norway if you disagree.
|
>>
>> Perhaps if the Outers' case didn't rely so heavily on calling our international friends 'corrupt'
>> and 'undemocratic' I might have some sympathy, Manatee.
Well here's half your answer.
tinyurl.com/jlodw6a
|
...and here's the other half
tinyurl.com/hyftgb4
|
|
And where will those take me?
|
>> And where will those take me?
>>
Take a wild guess.
|
OK, I checked. The first is a Full Fact article that you may not have read because it supports my case better than yours. It explains the error rate in EU spending, which is behind the Outers' beloved but mistaken belief that this shows the EU to be 'corrupt'. The article is very clear that it doesn't, even if there may be suggestions of fraud in a few cases - 22 out of 1200 had such suggestions. If you're aware of any institution with a large budget that isn't a target for fraud, do let us know. And is UK government spending entirely free of 'errors'?
The second is to some student forum with no higher credentials than this place. Anyway, in which countries are the senior civil servants who draft and execute government policy directly elected? The Commission proposes legislation that the Parliament must approve; not that different from our system really.
|
>> OK, I checked. The first is a Full Fact article that you may not have
>> read because it supports my case better than yours. It explains the error rate in
>> EU spending
The bit that I think is 'corrupt' is the fact the accounts have not been signed off for all those years... not the percentage of errors you quote.
Presumably, if the auditors thought the same way as you, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>> The second is to some student forum with no higher credentials than this place.
... and your point is?
The message is the important bit, not the gravitas of who wrote it. I chose that one, amongst many, because it succinctly said what I wanted to say. The one above it on a Google search was a Guardian article, would that have done?
>> Anyway,
>> in which countries are the senior civil servants who draft and execute government policy directly
>> elected? The Commission proposes legislation that the Parliament must approve; not that different from our
>> system really.
The EU set up has the 'civil servants' running the place.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 1 May 16 at 20:25
|
>> Where are the substantive arguments for In? Anybody. Please.
>>
Manatee, who are you trying to kid? You've always intended to vote leave, but are at pains to try to make out how reasonable and balanced you're being.
At this stage it's hard to believe that someone so apparently concerned with the issue and keen to understand it is still asking what the arguments on either side actually are. OK, you use the word "substantive", so that is subjective and can give you an 'out' so to speak if the arguments presented to you aren't, in your opinion, substantive. NoFM2R has articulated this the best, but to summarise his position, it isn't really about whether arguments are substantive or not, as there are no facts we can refer to reliably predict the future. It's about listening to the arguments on both side and coming to a personal opinion as to the value of those positions.
I find it hard to accept that someone who has engaged with this subject for so long hasn't yet come to their conclusion, but just in case you haven't heard the "Remain" arguments yet, here are some of them:
www.proeuropa.org.uk/twelevereasons
These arguments, amongst others pass my 'substantive' test, and I will vote "Remain" accordingly. You may differ.
But I think you've had time enough now to appreciate that nobody is capable of giving you cast iron 'facts' about what will happen as a consequence of either outcome.
I'd be very surprised if you listen to your adult children and, if they are minded to vote "Remain", do likewise for their sake. I'll line up the portion of humble pie in advance should that happen.
|
>> www.proeuropa.org.uk/twelevereasons
That's nearly all opinion, rather than fact, and some of the facts are a bit approximate to say the least. That would matter less if it came from a neutral source, but it doesn't.
Do you know what this means for example:
"Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market – 1 in 10 British jobs."
I don't.
"While the EU is the world’s largest market, a UK outside the EU would not be a high priority for other counties to negotiate a trade deal."
Why not? Fact? or opinion?
You see the problem? We are drowning in drivel from both sides, it's just noise. It doesn't pass my test, not nearly.
|
>> You see the problem? We are drowning in drivel from both sides, it's just noise.
>> It doesn't pass my test, not nearly.
>>
I didn't present those arguments as facts. But they are not drivel, and are, in my book, substantive arguments. I feel that they are, on the balance of probabilities, true. this is good enough for me to make my mind up.
So fine. You have demonstrated that there are no facts - this is of course apparent otherwise someone from whichever side it is who holds those facts, would present them to us and win the argument. You want a crystal ball form both sides, well there ain't one, let alone two.
So, if you are not prepared to answer the Referendum question, on the basis that neither side can make a convincing argument to you, then you must abstain - or make a decision based on your subjective feelings about the whole thing, as most of us will have to do in the final analysis.
Glad we sorted that out for you.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 3 May 16 at 14:06
|
>> Glad we sorted that out for you.
Thank you for trying, I neglected to acknowledge your no doubt sincere effort.
|
No problem.
So, now that it's sunk in that the facts you want can't exist, which way are you inclined to vote? Remain, Leave, or Abstain?
|
|
Don't patronise me, there are others here who need it more than I do.
|
I
>> would sincerely encourage younger voters to get out and vote. They are the ones most
>> likely to be affected by the referendum 's outcome.
>>
I would encourage EVERYONE to vote; in fact I'm a fan of compulsory voting. Sick and tired of whiners who moan about everything and then say they didn't bother to vote.
|
in fact I'm a fan of compulsory voting.
Compulsory voting is one thing I don't get. Surely people should have the right to not vote?
|
>>in fact I'm a fan of compulsory voting.
There'd be one or two spoiled ballot papers.
|
>> >>in fact I'm a fan of compulsory voting.
>>
>> There'd be one or two spoiled ballot papers.
>>
I suppose that once one had checked in at the polling station, one would have complied with the statutory requirement.
|
It's a secret ballot isn't it? If so then you could turn up, get your paper and abstain by just not marking it before putting it in the box.
|
>> >>in fact I'm a fan of compulsory voting.
>>
>> There'd be one or two spoiled ballot papers.
>>
I don't have a problem with that; or indeed the addition of a box marked "none of the above".
I am however minded to think that the simple act of having to get off their backsides and go to the polling station or post box, or even taking a minute out of Facebook and the X-Box to send a text that's not to their intimate circle of fellow troglodytes, might persuade more than a few people that you can't change things from the outside.
|
|
It's an experiment worth trying, HM. Political apathy is a big problem and the physical effort of going to a polling station and holding that pencil might engage some mental processes too. That might also be an argument for restricting access to postal voting, that it's important to actually be there if possible.
|
I still say it is too close to call.
I think it will be 51% to leave and 49% to stay.
I have altered my opinion since last week.
|
>>It's an experiment worth trying,
Its an experiment that has been exhausted.
The last General Election here was the first at which voting was not compulsory.
Bear in mind that this is a country with ID cards with fingerprints, photo and a number upon which your entire life depends - its called a RUT. I cannot even get a VAT receipt from a supermarket without it. Not withdraw money, pay in money, buy a car, use any Government or state service or department, report a crime, get insurance or make a claim, etc. etc. etc.
And even then controlling who had voted, who had not voted but was excused and who had not voted and was wrong was verging on the impossible. People get sick, leave the country, die, go to prison, to hospital etc etc.
An absolute logistic nightmare.
And that's before you even get started on the moral issues.
Do you punish someone who doesn't vote? i.e. take their money or freedom because they haven't used their right to vote?
If I have the right to demand the voting system, then surely I should have the right to deny it? I may be compelled to accept the law, and the word of the State, but should i be compelled to support it by voting in something I do not believe in?
If I do not have the right to renounce the process, then my acceptance of the process is surely meaningless?
And all this just to get a statistically higher turn out of voters, presumably without any improvement in acceptance and commitment?
So, compulsory voting, almost impossible to enforce, an infringement of my rights, and an expensive process with no resultant increase in voting quality or commitment because the figures will make the people who already do vote feel better when they read their reports?
No thanks.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 1 May 16 at 16:59
|
Punishments for not voting in countries that have such a rule, seem to be a small fine ie less than £10. I don't think it would work here, people don't really like being told what to do.
The difference isn't really that great anyway, doing a bit of reading it's only about 7% higher turn out when voting is compulsory.
|
|
What was the punishment in chile and was it enforced?
|
The fine was $250,000 [CLP]; about £250. It was 100% enforced.
Bear in mind that you're starting with a registered citizen because of the ID approach.
If you did not vote you would receive a summons through the post. You then had to either pay, or go to a judge in a formal court session to justify your non-voting. [hospital, out of country, etc. etc]
Insofar as enforcing the fine, they often take a passive approach. Passively wait for you to want a bank loan, register a car, renew your driving licence, sell a car, go to hospital etc. etc. and then refuse to allow you to proceed without paying the fine, and having foudn you will arrest you.
Non-payment of the fine was a prison sentence.
|
|
Cheers, how come it got knocked on the head? Did many people say they just went and spoilt their papers, did more people seem interested in politics?
|
Complex.
Remember that Chile was coming from a military coup and dictatorship which even today still has a substantial impact on their society. You can get into a vicious argument as easily by saying Pinochet was bad as you can by saying he was good. They are almost exactly 50/50 on the matter.
So for many years they had no opportunity to vote. Even when they theoretically regained the right, many tricks were played to stop voters getting to the ballot box. So they made voting compulsory. This prevented right wing bosses making their left wing employees work on election day, for example.
Gradually that need faded as they started wanting more and more rights, including the right not to vote.
Eventually it was agreed that removing compulsory voting was an increase in the rights of the individual. As is always the case here, a country of extremes, a large section do not agree.
They believe that voting is your duty in exactly the same way as paying taxes, and both should be enforced by law.
They truly have not resolved the balance and interaction between duty, rights, benefits and responsibilities.
The interest, and pretty much the knowledge, of politics, economics and international issues is about the same here as in the UK. - i.e. not great.
|
I thought the past of a military dictatorship might well have something to do with it. many other south american countries seem to have similar rules and they similarly had dictatorships.
Outside of those countries the only major country that has a rule about voting and enforces it is australia, not much of a endorsement.
|
I don't have a problem with that; or indeed the addition of a box marked "none of the above".
Any compulsory voting system ought to include that as putting a blank voting slip in the box is inviting either corruption, or the accusation of corruption. Mind you, my old students union did that for non-compulsory voting and for at least one incidence I recall, "none of the above" won. A new ballot had to be taken, and new candidates too.
|
Apathy no interest or not believing in any political system why people won't vote.
You would concluded that a non vote is a vote.They know the numbers how many people should vote.Sounds double dutch if you know what I mean.
|
|
I still say it is too close to call, either way.
|
It is very close to call.Lets.have the local elections out of the way and onwards we go.
To much hype at the moment about anti Semitism.
|
I could not agree with you more..
There are local elections next week.
That should be the main priority of the political parties.
|
Sorry not " next week " but this week.
Sorry.
|
|
Not fussed about the sort of people you are voting for then?
|
|
A thought: maybe the same status as the Isle of Man would suit us. The Island isn’t part of the European Union. It has its own government and I believe is still officially at war with Germany, not having signed a declaration of peace after WWII.
|
>> A thought: maybe the same status as the Isle of Man would suit us. The
>> Island isn’t part of the European Union. It has its own government and I believe
>> is still officially at war with Germany, not having signed a declaration of peace after
>> WWII.
Clearly that is a situation that must be dealt with immediately, it could flare up again at any time and we would all be drawn into another disastrous conflict.
Reminds me of a chat I had on a walk a couple of weeks ago with friends, a married couple of about 70. Both are well informed, politically aware and far from gaga. Probably a bit left leaning, like me.
The chap surprised me with his reason for intending to vote 'remain'. "Well we don't want any more wars, do we?"
I don't deny that was a factor in my thinking in 1975, when all of us must have had family who had been though one or both European turned world wars. in successive generations. But now? Shirley not.
|
|
Whether we're in or out will have no effect on war. We, either with the E.U or without it will always be at war somewhere, Isis for example. Granted, it won't be the old-fashioned "WW2" style.
|
Is the debate really about to what extent we would have any worthwhile say in
- the further development of the EU; and
- fiscal policy, which we might reasonably expect to be wholeheartedly set to whatever best mitigates the eurozone stresses, rather than what works best for the UK.
Full political union is the direction of travel. Probably more workable than indefinitely being hostage to the euro, if it can be achieved. If not, how graceful will the eurozone break-up be?
We have to look a long way down the road.
|
|
People should pay their taxes wherever they live.
|
Whether we're in or out will have no effect on war. We, either with the E.U or without it will always be at war somewhere, Isis for example.
Who's to say that? We're 70 years past the last war between nations that are now EU members. (Croatia and Slovenia were not members at the time of the breakup of Yugoslavia, of course.) We've spent that time building structures that ensure European countries have a mutual interest in peaceful, prosperous coexistence. If we start to unpick that now - and the whole thing unravels, as some here appear to hope - what's to stop us sliding back towards the instability that afflicted Europe in previous centuries? It might take a generation or two, but we really don't want it to happen at all.
We do indeed have to look a long way down the road.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Sun 1 May 16 at 18:00
|
What you have said WillDeBeest I could not agree with you more.
We in Europe should use the ballot box and not the bullet.
The ballot box is our security and safety.
|
This does sort of tickle me and indeed remind me of a scenario I'm part of. I have two very close lifelong friends, one of whom always votes SNP, the other always votes Labour and I always vote Conservative. ( they both still live in Scotland )
We argue with each other over it, until we are blue in the face, each astonished at the clear stupidity of the others, have done for decades, but despite that, we all still think we are right.
The committed "innies" will vote in, the committed "outies" will vote out, no matter how persuasive those with the opposite opinion rail on.
Only the undecided will actually decide the outcome, which is a bit of of a worry when you think about it.
;-)
|
|
At the moment I am tempted to Vote Leave but I have doubts.
|
>> The committed "innies" will vote in, the committed "outies" will vote out, no matter how
>> persuasive those with the opposite opinion rail on.
>>
>> Only the undecided will actually decide the outcome, which is a bit of of a
>> worry when you think about it.
I am now a more firm 'out', but I started as a probable/maybe 'out' who could be persuaded to be an 'in' if the argument had real substance...
... and I do not appreciate at all my fears of staying in being rubbished or stating/presuming that they are imagined.
If some 'ins' were to discuss my fears and patiently work through the likely outcomes, I could in theory be persuaded otherwise... however, dismissing them and pretending they don't exist doesn't cut it.
I suspect I'm not alone.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 1 May 16 at 20:34
|
Are you thinking of Voting to Leave Westpig
What is tempting you either way.
|
>> Are you thinking of Voting to Leave Westpig
>>
>> What is tempting you either way.
>>
Short and medium term stability would be an 'in', being part of the large trading block.
However, the loss of sovereignty and interference from abroad rankles me, as does the gross inefficiency and lack of democracy... I want this country's parliament to make the decisions here... plus, we pay a lot in and generally play by the rules, when some don't.
Longer term, I see no reason why the 5th largest nation for GDP and the 5th largest military won't find it's own equilibrium in the world and be perfectly fine in the order of things, just as other nations have achieved.
Overall, i'm most likely to vote 'out'.
|
"I am now a more firm 'out', but I started as a probable/maybe 'out' who could be persuaded to be an 'in' if the argument had real substance..."
Me similarly. It must be putting the youngsters in some quandary because, traditionally, they react against their parents' views so, do they react against the fact that they took us in, or do they react against them now wanting to come out? If it's the younger generation that swings the vote to stay in, then that's fine - they are the ones who will have to put up with the consequences.
If we leave, then I suspect that others will follow soon enough.
|
"If we leave, then I suspect that others will follow soon enough."
That is indeed a possibility and probably the main reason why we should stay in. If Europe were once more to become fragmented there is no knowing where it would end. If history shows anything then it shows that a collection of European States all pursuing their own individual interests at the expense of theirr neighbours is unlikley to be good for Europe or for us.
It has taken decades for Europe to achieve what it hs to date imperfect as it is. Do we really want to be the nation that helped revive nationalism in Europe?
|
|
The EU seems to be doing a good job of reviving nationalism.
|
Nationalism is always there. It needs to be restrained, not encouraged.
|
"If Europe were once more to become fragmented there is no knowing where it would end. If history shows anything.........."
If history shows anything, it shows that we should be more worried about fragmentation within countries, brought about by cultural differences.
|
|
Fragmentation and division on any level is unlikely to improve relationships between different groups or countries.
|
>> If history shows anything, it shows that we should be more worried about fragmentation within
>> countries, brought about by cultural differences.
Hasn't most of that already happened? Obvs example is former Yugoslavia but Czech, Slovakia is another. Where is Spain in route to becoming a Federation?
The Wallons and Flemish in Belgium?
|
>> >> If history shows anything, it shows that we should be more worried about fragmentation
>> within
>> >> countries, brought about by cultural differences.
If you take that as a history lesson ("those who do not know history" etc) then you might want to avoid full political union.
Where is Spain in route to becoming a Federation?
>>
>> The Wallons and Flemish in Belgium?
Maybe an affiliation with agreement on a customs union and common standards for goods and services, no common currency, and full commitment to the subsidiarity principle, is the best way forward. What an original idea...
Unfortunately that is not on the ballot paper.
|
|
We are on a small Island having borders different laws and currency sounds bizarre to me.
|
|
We have our own currency and the right to set our own interest rates.
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/data-gap-lets-migrants-disappear-as-eu-opens-door-to-127-million/
So it won't affect us as we already have control of our borders and have known for years who's entering and leaving?
Oh, hang on a minute........
|
If large areas of this planet become inhabitable due to war or famine people will move.The ones with money first and the rest will follow.
Borders won't stop anybody unless governments decide on a genoside policy.If you have nothing to lose you lose it.
|
|
If you favour Brexit then get on to your Returning Officer now. It can't possibly be allowable to have signs at the polling stations saying "WAY IN" !
Last edited by: Dulwich Estate II on Wed 4 May 16 at 19:22
|
|
I still say it is too close to call, either way.
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 -Volume 11 - Roger.
