Future War Cultist wrote: The answer is number two. He's decided that being labor leader is more important than standing up for his beliefs. But I wouldn't expect anything less from the thing.
And the votes for prisoners thing is another bug bear of mine with the EU. They try to say that only a complete blanket ban is unacceptable and that if we just gave the vote back to non violent offenders serving less than three months that would be enough to meet the terms. But the though of anyone in prison getting a vote sickens me. The whole point of prison is you're being punished. You need to repay that debt before you get that privilege back. And who the hell wants prisoners as a voting block for politicians to pander to?
Which is "funny" because I doubt anyone would pander to violent offenders anyway, that would be political suicide. The prisoners I wouldn't want voting would be ones committing non-violent crimes like fraud, election fraud etc because those are the sort of people politicians might try and rewrite the rules for.
The only point I've seen from Remain that makes me want to vote that way is the issue that non-EU members with trading agreements have to suck up EU rules with no say in the matter, if anything was going to persuade me to vote Remain, it's that.
Either way though, we will not be withdrawing from the EU within this Parliament even with a vote to Leave no matter how strong the margin. The current Members of Parliament just will not have it, they'll obfuscate and dither and put up as many barriers as they can to kick the issue into the long grass for as long as they can.
Folks might have seen that there will be a substantial group of MPs who, should there be a Brexit vote, will campaign to be part of the EU trade group. Even with a Brexit vote, there will be no particular mandate against their doing so, as there is no unanimity among the Brexit politicians of what kind of trade agreements they would institute.
There might be advantages in doing so; it might prick the hubris of people like Juncker, and reduce the intimidation of, for instance, the Greek government. So, rather than hastening the end of the EU, it might stimulate reform.
But of course, while the EU may be better off in this scenario, the Brits will be worse off, as we will be paying into the EU for access to the market, without a say in regulations. And we would have to accept free movement of workers - which is the hot issue for many voters, even if it's one largely generated by Farage and the Express's race-baiting.
1) Referendum
2) In or Out, tory party rips itself to pieces
3) Legal challenge to result of referendum due to massive foul up of voter registration and the possibly legally dubious extension. Referendum result ruled void.
4) Some form of no confidence vote in parliament
5) General election. With infighting within all political parties at various levels, Coalition government again
6) No new referendum
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:But of course, while the EU may be better off in this scenario, the Brits will be worse off, as we will be paying into the EU for access to the market, without a say in regulations. And we would have to accept free movement of workers - which is the hot issue for many voters, even if it's one largely generated by Farage and the Express's race-baiting.
Baragash wrote:The only point I've seen from Remain that makes me want to vote that way is the issue that non-EU members with trading agreements have to suck up EU rules with no say in the matter, if anything was going to persuade me to vote Remain, it's that.
This is what is persuaded me to vote Remain.
I'm also not convinced by the plans, if any, made by the Leave campaigners are going to work out for us long-term. I think Norway and Switzerland take in more immigrants as a percentage than the UK (although this could be due to population size).
The worst example someone who is voting Leave said to me was that the USA doesn't accept free movement of people to trade with the EU. Two issues with that - the first being it is not in the continent of Europe so is under no obligation to accept European citizens and the second being that unlike the UK, the USA is a super power (on par with the entirety of the EU, Russia and the emerging China/India/Brazil) so can dictate terms more than the UK could.
This is the biggest reason to vote leave in my opinion! I don't care so much about immigrants into the UK. Sovereignty is a weak argument as has been said, to continue trading with EU on equal terms requires giving this up anyway. Lack of independent law making is a farce because all EU laws have to be ratified by parliament and they rarely vote them down anyway and by and large most of them are good things for the general populace.
But TTIP is just scandalous and once I understood what it meant it made sense why Obama was wading into this debate in his clumsy yes we can feth you up attitude.
The Conservatives are very pro-TTIP anyway, and arguably a trans-EU public reaction would be more likely to stop it, so IMO TTIP is actually a non-issue as far as the Referendum is concerned.
Baragash wrote: The Conservatives are very pro-TTIP anyway, and arguably a trans-EU public reaction would be more likely to stop it, so IMO TTIP is actually a non-issue as far as the Referendum is concerned.
Green party spokeswoman: "on both ISDS and transparency in TTIP we have seen progress at EU level, following the concerted efforts of engaged MEPs, campaigners and a better informed public. " As in, the EU is the main group fighting for limits.
In contrast, Gove attacked charities like War On Want for 'scaremongering' on TTIP, in his role as Tory Whip.
TTIP isn't set in stone. In addition, it has to be agreed by all 28 member states and the big names, including the UK, France and Germany, have issues with it.
In the case of Brexit, the UK would be influenced by the TTIP if it wants to continue trading with the EU and USA, without getting a say to stop or change how it works.
The only way to stop the UK being affected by TTIP in the case of Brexit is to not trade with the USA or EU, in which case say goodbye to 63% of all trade and a lot of businesses who relocate to countries where they can make more profit.
In short, the TTIP is a bad reason for wanting to leave.
Thought it was an interesting read, though slightly disappointed that the Remain author wasted one of the points to accuse Leavers as being borderline racists though :(
I think that, at the end of the day, the don't knows will swing it. Those decided on either Remain or Leave are unlikely to be swayed at this point. Watch out for more extreme rhetoric. Speaking of which, there was a piece in the telegraph today by one of Thatchers ex-ministers and he laments (and lambastes Cameron) for the extremist rhetoric used. I think both sides would find something in there to agree with:
“I thought that when he called the referendum, probably we were going to have a sensible, if not an intellectual, debate about the pros and cons of the EU.
“And I do believe that if they had set off to set out what they saw of the advantages and the disadvantages on the other side, and it had been a balanced debate, then they would quite easily have come out with a Remain conclusion.”
However, he warned: “They launched very early into this attack, this description of all the horrors that would happen if we exit. I just listed to this and thought, ‘this is complete nonsense’.”
I know that the US is a super power and all, but I think we can get a good deal of we just had a decent negotiator in the chair. For too long we've had a trend of prime ministers who've effectively sold us out for personal gain to better their international image.
^
Good articles. But I'm tried of being called a xenophobe by remainers.
Future War Cultist wrote: I know that the US is a super power and all, but I think we can get a good deal of we just had a decent negotiator in the chair. For too long we've had a trend of prime ministers who've effectively sold us out for personal gain to better their international image.
^
Good articles. But I'm tried of being called a xenophobe by remainers.
I agree and it was one of the first points I mentioned in this thread. I may not have agreed with Thatcher's principles, but I respected her for standing by her beliefs even when things went south.
I don't trust Cameron to lead us into a good deal post-Brexit. Or any candidate we have.
Thought it was an interesting read, though slightly disappointed that the Remain author wasted one of the points to accuse Leavers as being borderline racists though :(
I thought the remain article was crap TBH, and his response at the bottom of the Leave article is factually inaccurate in a "wait, you get paid to be a journalist/writer?!" way.
Frozocrone wrote: I don't trust Cameron to lead us into a good deal post-Brexit. Or any candidate we have.
That's an argument that is a good counter to the "Remain and fight for reform" position: Do we or will we have an individual who is strong enough and has the political will to fight and carry out that reform. I look at the current shower in Parliament and conclude: No
I thought the remain article was crap TBH, and his response at the bottom of the Leave article is factually inaccurate in a "wait, you get paid to be a journalist/writer?!" way.
It's one of the better ones I've seen, but I agree in that it was a more of an attack Leave article instead of a "This is why remaining is good" line.
zedmeister wrote: It's one of the better ones I've seen, but I agree in that it was a more of an attack Leave article instead of a "This is why remaining is good" line.
I just realised you got the links the wrong way round
1) Regulation. This isn't a reason to remain, it's an argument not to use regulation as an excuse to leave. Except it doesn't address the fundamental issue with regulation about whether it's necessary and how distantly from the average voter it's being decided, so it isn't even a good counter-point.
2) Is there even a point here? If there is I think it's objectively incorrect - the closer voters are to those who make laws, the easier it is to influence and change the law makers. Just because we collectively don't know or won't agree on what we want isn't a good argument for not reducing the distance between voter and law-maker.
3) Is anyone actually blaming Europe for most of the things listed? I haven't seen it myself. Sure, he has a point that most of those things are a result of domestic Government, but if Europe hadn't signed up to this austerity bs it would have been much harder for the Tories to sell it in coalition. If it wasn't for Hitler, I'd be calling it the most evil thing I'm aware of Germany doing.
4) Do I need to even go into this one? Kettle calling frying pan......
5) Presumably the Greeks are over-flowing with co-operation? Wait, didn't you just call all the Leavers racist, that sounds a bit, what was the word...."rancid"? Didn't you just ad hominem a load of Leavers? Are you even reading your own article? Da fuq?
Just to be clear, I'm not picking on it because it's a Remain article, it's just bad, and one of the things winding me up about the whole referendum is the complete lack of quality output - this one just really rustled my jimmies.
I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)
Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.
Compel wrote: I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)
Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.
*Insert rant about Media being controlled by the government."
Compel wrote: I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)
Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.
I've tried to bring it up, and mostly been met with complete dismissal of everything in it--not refutation, a simple 'Nah, won't happen' after a cursory glance--an unwillingness to read it/claims of "I'll read it later", or an abrupt change of topic.
Aye, I knew this already from doing European Union Law. They are superior to every single one of our courts. And the protocol 30 was gak from the day it was signed, Blair knew exactly what it meant.
Compel wrote: I find it weird that the 5 EU Presidents report, on the surface of it, seems to be such an important thing (from reading the first few pages myself and the various comments on dakka.)
Yet, outside of Dakka, it hasn't come up once from anyone else.
I've tried to bring it up, and mostly been met with complete dismissal of everything in it--not refutation, a simple 'Nah, won't happen' after a cursory glance--an unwillingness to read it/claims of "I'll read it later", or an abrupt change of topic.
It is too complex for journalists to turn intro bite sized morsels for us plebs to digest.
I have brought it up in conversation with remain campaigners. I get the feeling that activists on both sides have no real idea that full federalisation is a thing.
Aye, I knew this already from doing European Union Law. They are superior to every single one of our courts. And the protocol 30 was gak from the day it was signed, Blair knew exactly what it meant.
The postscript of the article is another indictment of the nature of EU bureaucracy. We should be very afraid that EU institutions can abuse their powers to silence Journalists.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently its a lie that Turkey will be joining the EU.......
Am I right in understanding that the remain side believe that any British politician would be stupid enough to remove any rights that have already been granted? Doing so would be career suicide surely?
statu wrote: Am I right in understanding that the remain side believe that any British politician would be stupid enough to remove any rights that have already been granted? Doing so would be career suicide surely?
On the basis of comments made on the debate...The EU are also the only thing standing between the Tories and the return of women having to stay at home.
From what I've seen of that debate it was a lot of attacking Boris personally rather than debating the issue. There's only so many times (three I counted in the highlights) you can shout about Boris wanting to be Prime Minister before it looks like you've got nothing but personal attacks. Waste of time. For a start, I don't think its news to anyone that Boris would like to be PM - many don't care or would even like him more than Cameron!
Leave totally won that tv debate, all the remains could bring up was personal attacks on boris and economic "experts" who missed/got wrong all the last few major economic problems. (Euro/crash/emf) of which as a country we followed one which was the emf which nearly bankurped the country.
Oh the ins also went on about the 350mill figure. And even got schooled on that. They were just embarssing to see.
It’s been the case for awhile that all the remain camp have been able to do is attack the people of the leave camp – this has just become more apparent when it’s in a concentrated block like a TV debate.
It’s a failing strategy however, if all you can do is attack you’re opposition then people will start to think that you can’t actually come up with a good argument to remain.
I only watched part of the debate, but what I did see was out showing how a vote to leave could be good for the country – and in yelling that a vote out would be good for Boris, what nobody seemed to be doing was showing why a vote to remain would be a good thing for anyone.
Stranger83 wrote: It’s been the case for awhile that all the remain camp have been able to do is attack the people of the leave camp – this has just become more apparent when it’s in a concentrated block like a TV debate.
It’s a failing strategy however, if all you can do is attack you’re opposition then people will start to think that you can’t actually come up with a good argument to remain.
I only watched part of the debate, but what I did see was out showing how a vote to leave could be good for the country – and in yelling that a vote out would be good for Boris, what nobody seemed to be doing was showing why a vote to remain would be a good thing for anyone.
Well, for starters, you can fly to Mallorca for 40 quid instead of 200. You get to keep The City with all the money and surplus it creates for London and the UK as a whole. Your granny can live in Andalucia and still get UK pensions and access to health care without extra costs. You can easily go to other European countries, study there, work there and come back anytime you like. You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.
You are also working on developping poorer European countries, making them less susceptible to crime, civil unrest or even war in the process. You can adress international issues through an international system that is a bit more than just "the heads of all involved states".
You can buy European wares cheaper. Your business will profit a lot from having more contintental European customers. Your business also gets required workers more easily. Your culture is getting infused with new ideas faster. If Germany wants to push their car industry further into the world, you actually might have a veto in that - or get something nice and shiny YOUR government wants in return for being OK with it.
It think that are just some of the benefits.
Of course there are the damages of leaving, as well, and there are important negative sides with staying, which have already been discussed with various states of rationality.
I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?
My suggestion: Some time ago (in the 1970s), British people (or at least their leaders) thought it was a brilliant idea to become more European. 1. Ask yourself why. 2. See where your country has gone from that point on. 3. Make a decision if you want to continue that way, or at least keep what you got out of it, or not.
What the British people voted to join in the 70s and what has been created by the likes of Maastricht and the completely anti-democratic bs that is Lisbon are two very, very different things.
Well, for starters, you can fly to Mallorca for 40 quid instead of 200. You get to keep The City with all the money and surplus it creates for London and the UK as a whole. Your granny can live in Andalucia and still get UK pensions and access to health care without extra costs. You can easily go to other European countries, study there, work there and come back anytime you like. You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.
You are also working on developping poorer European countries, making them less susceptible to crime, civil unrest or even war in the process. You can adress international issues through an international system that is a bit more than just "the heads of all involved states".
You can buy European wares cheaper. Your business will profit a lot from having more contintental European customers. Your business also gets required workers more easily. Your culture is getting infused with new ideas faster. If Germany wants to push their car industry further into the world, you actually might have a veto in that - or get something nice and shiny YOUR government wants in return for being OK with it.
Cheap flights to Malaga wills till be there if we Leave. That's dependent on the budget airlines and not whether you're in the EU zone or not. A quick check shows that a flight to Sweden is roughly the same as a flight to Norway. Or a flight to Morocco is about the same as a flight to Italy.
The City will be fine should we leave. It deals with worldwide commerce, not just EU commerce.
"My Granny" could still live in Andalusia. Plenty of British expats live in non-eu countries and still get healthcare and pension benefits. They'd just need to take extra steps to become residents (something they should really do if they're planning on permanently live in an EU country anyway)
Granted on the ease of studying in an EU country. But again, not insurmountable.
This bit made me laugh and I have to pull you up on it:
You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.
Peace and prosperity NATO is the reason that peace exists. Also, there's the small matter of those attacks in Belgium and Germany as well as the Ukraine debacle. And, as for prosperity, please tell that to Greece. Or Italy. Or Spain. Finally, that "help" comes at a price as Greece discovered.
I agree that nations need help, but shovelling cash at poorer states is not necessarily a good way to go. And we should be able to choose, as a nation, whom we help and how we help them. As for the supposed advantages of collective bargaining that the EU gives, this picture is how I percieve it:
Spoiler:
Also, as has been shown, we buy much less from the EU as time goes on.
Finally:
So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?
Should we Leave I will still be British and European. Just as the Swiss and Norwegians are European. But I won't be under the EU.
I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?
Because Brits cannot make a rational decision?
It's high handed attitudes like the one that you demonstrate that take a rational discussion and poison it.
Also I find it risible that Military conflict come into this discussion. The UK has not started a continental conflict for centuries. We have of course had to step in and solve a few. I can see nothing but good that have come from those interventions for Europe see no reason why that would change in the future. The EU does not provide the UK with some magic formulae that keeps us from harm; we already have that covered quite nicely thank you.
My suggestion: Some time ago (in the 1970s), British people (or at least their leaders) thought it was a brilliant idea to become more European. 1. Ask yourself why. 2. See where your country has gone from that point on. 3. Make a decision if you want to continue that way, or at least keep what you got out of it, or not.
1. The British people voted to join the Common Market in 1970's and not the European Union.
2. Because Britain were still paying for the effects of WW2 so a free trade area (really a customs area but anyway...) was highly desirable to all as an opportunity to lift Britain out of the doldrums.
3. We would continue that way but the Common Market has mutated from what we voted for and into the EU, which will in turn mutate into a European State. We didn't vote for this and don't want it. It is not a rejection of Europe but of a non-democratic and distant form of governance that we have never voted for.
Cheap flights to Malaga wills till be there if we Leave. That's dependent on the budget airlines and not whether you're in the EU zone or not. A quick check shows that a flight to Sweden is roughly the same as a flight to Norway. Or a flight to Morocco is about the same as a flight to Italy.
This is true.
The City will be fine should we leave. It deals with worldwide commerce, not just EU commerce.
This, perhaps not. I suspect Britain will ultimately retain its financial pre-eminence in Europe, but it will no longer be something we can guarantee, and it will be a lot rockier as places like Vienna try and lure business away. Certainly, saying it will be 'fine' simplifies an extremely complex market and matter.
"My Granny" could still live in Andalusia. Plenty of British expats live in non-eu countries and still get healthcare and pension benefits. They'd just need to take extra steps to become residents (something they should really do if they're planning on permanently live in an EU country anyway)
This is true and yet not true. Yes, people will still be able to relocate. But it won't be automatic, and there will be no guarantee of approval. In the same way I can't just move to Australia, a country doesn't always take you in and let you stay, or give you the chance to apply for citizenship. Usually you require independent wealth and a job there before most countries lay out the welcome mat. Under the EU, there's no need for such things.
Granted on the ease of studying in an EU country. But again, not insurmountable.
This is potentially one of the easier ones to solve, academics are quite good at slipping around borders. It should be relatively easy to make arrangements for students.
Peace and prosperity NATO is the reason that peace exists. Also, there's the small matter of those attacks in Belgium and Germany as well as the Ukraine debacle. And, as for prosperity, please tell that to Greece. Or Italy. Or Spain. Finally, that "help" comes at a price as Greece discovered.
Yes and no. NATO and communism is the reason we all drew together, and keeps us safe from direct external attack. But the EU has helped to keep us together. If the EU disintegrates, it's all too possible to see repeats of Kosovo or the breakup of Yugoslavia. The borders of Europe are firmer than they have been in a long time, but the rise of the Far Right isn't purely due to the EU, rather in spite of it. Whilst inherently anti-democratic towards anti-capitalist or facist groups, the EU has helped to suppress such groups in most cases (with a few obvious exceptions).
That said, we are unlikely to see any issues here in Britain if the European project fails. Britain is possibly the most politically stable place in the world. But it helps to keep a wider perspective.
I agree that nations need help, but shovelling cash at poorer states is not necessarily a good way to go. And we should be able to choose, as a nation, whom we help and how we help them.
For a third time, yes and no.
Theoretically, spreading the wealth helps spread political stability, as well as creating more markets for our advanced consumer goods and services. That said, it hasn't panned out much that way so far for us (we still export more outside of the EU than to it), but there's an inevitable trend in that direction, it'll just take more time.
As for the supposed advantages of collective bargaining that the EU gives, this picture is how I percieve it:
Spoiler:
I agree with this. Our slice of the cake might be smaller, but it'll be more comprised of things we personally want, as opposed to all of Europe.
I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?
Because Brits cannot make a rational decision?
I think Ketara showed a lot more rationability than you in his response - without accepting all my points nor giving up his position.
So I think some Brits can make a reasoned and informed decision, it is just that I highly doubt most will. Which would be the same for Germans or French, or Belgians (definitely for Belgians! ). I think it much more attitudes such as your own or zedmeister that poison the discussion, being defensive all the time, sitting on a highly manichean point of view (us vs. them), trying to "eliminate" every point that is being brought forward without proper knowledge of economics or polities (not politics). So if you wanted to show me that more Brits will vote rationally, you have not made a good point, I am afraid.
Again, I am not saying that you should not leave or that you have no right, or that Britains well-being will be decided upon by the European question alone.
I find it sad, that the average Brit does not seem to see the advantages besides the - non-trivial! - disadvantages. But that could be said about the average German or French as well.
That is precisely why most of my friends (French, Belgian, German, Spanish) now say "Have them leave and we will all learn a lot from it."
treslibras wrote: [ I think it much more attitudes such as your own or zedmeister that poison the discussion, being defensive all the time, sitting on a highly manichean point of view (us vs. them), trying to "eliminate" every point that is being brought forward without proper knowledge of economics or polities (not politics).
Poison? Really? You made some points, I made a half hearted attempt at rebutting them. Isn't that more akin to a debate. I wasn't bashing or ranting and I'm sure I have simplified or got some confused - Ketara made a better job of rebutting my ramblings and he's voting Leave (or was).
Poisoning the debate would be chucking around deliberate untruths, blatant character assassinations and the like. This is an emotional and political decision for us and things will get heated (as with anything to do with politics). Hardly poisonous though.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, take that fence out of your rear and stop all this yes and no malarkey
I do seem to have stirred up the hornets nest slightly (ladies, you're both pretty!) Perhaps I should go back to researching pre-WW1 armaments instead of posting on Dakka...
The German finance minister says no access to the single market if it's BREXIT.
God almighty...
Even if he's right, does he honestly think the best way to get an in vote is a for a German politician to lecture the British public, given the historical past between Britain and Germany...
Stranger83 wrote: It’s been the case for awhile that all the remain camp have been able to do is attack the people of the leave camp – this has just become more apparent when it’s in a concentrated block like a TV debate.
It’s a failing strategy however, if all you can do is attack you’re opposition then people will start to think that you can’t actually come up with a good argument to remain.
I only watched part of the debate, but what I did see was out showing how a vote to leave could be good for the country – and in yelling that a vote out would be good for Boris, what nobody seemed to be doing was showing why a vote to remain would be a good thing for anyone.
Well, for starters, you can fly to Mallorca for 40 quid instead of 200. You get to keep The City with all the money and surplus it creates for London and the UK as a whole. Your granny can live in Andalucia and still get UK pensions and access to health care without extra costs. You can easily go to other European countries, study there, work there and come back anytime you like. You will also be part of a visionary project to create a zone of peace and prosperity where for centuries military conflicts and civil unrest was an everyday part of a lot of peoples lives. If your country was in dire need of help, it would receive it.
You are also working on developping poorer European countries, making them less susceptible to crime, civil unrest or even war in the process. You can adress international issues through an international system that is a bit more than just "the heads of all involved states".
You can buy European wares cheaper. Your business will profit a lot from having more contintental European customers. Your business also gets required workers more easily. Your culture is getting infused with new ideas faster. If Germany wants to push their car industry further into the world, you actually might have a veto in that - or get something nice and shiny YOUR government wants in return for being OK with it.
It think that are just some of the benefits.
Of course there are the damages of leaving, as well, and there are important negative sides with staying, which have already been discussed with various states of rationality.
I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?
My suggestion: Some time ago (in the 1970s), British people (or at least their leaders) thought it was a brilliant idea to become more European. 1. Ask yourself why. 2. See where your country has gone from that point on. 3. Make a decision if you want to continue that way, or at least keep what you got out of it, or not.
I know most people have already pointed out your flaws, but let me do the same:
Whilst some of those are good point some are just silly – please explain why a flight to Majorca would go up from £40 to £200, whilst there MAY be some tax charged I doubt this would be 400%.
My granny would continue to get her UK pension living in the EU regardless of if we are in the EU or not, the same as she DOES actually get this living in the US, so that’s not a valid argument either.
Cost of goods will go up – maybe, or maybe we’ll just buy all the stuff that your EU bans (I certainly don’t care how bendy my cucumbers are) and the prices will actually go down, or maybe we’ll get a free trade agreement with China and get our stuff cheap without import taxes, the truth is we won’t know until we leave.
Free healthcare within the EU I will give you, this is a benefit of membership and one I’ll be sad to see go. That said travel health insurance is normally about £40 (assuming you don’t get this free with your bank for example) so it’s not going to hit peoples finances too much. I will give you that this IS a valid argument to remain however.
Helping the poor countries of the EU? Do you really see what the EU is doing to Greece as helping it? Are you that deluded?
We get to keep the City? You mean it’s just going to disappear if we leave? We’ve managed to keep the city so far because we’ve managed to PREVENT the EU from including the UK in it’s over regulation of the city – if we leave we can ignore the few regulations that we were unable to prevent. That’s a reason for it to stay NOT leave. They are in the city because they want to avoid the EU regulation in the first place a vote to leave is hardly going to see them rushing to go to the more regulated place.
Peace – cause this is entirely the EU, despite the fact it was we had 30 years of peace before the EU started, it’s nothing to do with the fact that people became fed up of going to war or the introduction of NATO and the UN.
Being able to work in Germany – because immigration didn’t exist before the EU, oh no. It may be easier to go work there, but I’ve never heard of any modern country turning away anyone who can help it’s economy.
Interesting you should bring up the vote in 1970 also. The majority of the people who voted at that time are now predicted to vote OUT – clearly those who remember a time before the EU think that we are better off out of it – that is actually one of the biggest reasons that made me go with OUT.
So you have made 1 good claim in all that, hardly a ringing endorsement – but it is 1 more than the people campaigning to remain are making.
My original point wasn't that there are no good reasons to stay in the EU, of cause there are some - it's just that the benefits are so far outweighed by what we lose that even those campaigning to remain in have given up giving reasons for us to remain and have started to attacking those who are showing the benefits of leaving. It's not the right track to win the referendum and if anything pushes those undecided towards Brexit.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Ketara, take that fence out of your rear and stop all this yes and no malarkey
I do seem to have stirred up the hornets nest slightly (ladies, you're both pretty!) Perhaps I should go back to researching pre-WW1 armaments instead of posting on Dakka...
I guess, in the end, 95% of Brits will make an emotional decision, rationalized by rather one-sided "proper" arguments. So you just need to chose "Do I feel better as a British AND as a European (with all the downsides) or to be be British only (with all the downsides)?
Because Brits cannot make a rational decision?
I think Ketara showed a lot more rationability than you in his response - without accepting all my points nor giving up his position.
So I think some Brits can make a reasoned and informed decision, it is just that I highly doubt most will. Which would be the same for Germans or French, or Belgians (definitely for Belgians! ). I think it much more attitudes such as your own or zedmeister that poison the discussion, being defensive all the time, sitting on a highly manichean point of view (us vs. them), trying to "eliminate" every point that is being brought forward without proper knowledge of economics or polities (not politics). So if you wanted to show me that more Brits will vote rationally, you have not made a good point, I am afraid.
Again, I am not saying that you should not leave or that you have no right, or that Britains well-being will be decided upon by the European question alone.
I find it sad, that the average Brit does not seem to see the advantages besides the - non-trivial! - disadvantages. But that could be said about the average German or French as well.
That is precisely why most of my friends (French, Belgian, German, Spanish) now say "Have them leave and we will all learn a lot from it."
While I greatly respect my friend Ketara he comes from a more Academic background than my own as Commercial Manager in London. We both see the same problem but from different aspects and our opinions are coloured by than. In general though I don't think there is so much as a cigarette (cigarette) paper between us on this one.
The few points you did make that weren't tacit insults (you were nice enough to number them) were addressed and you have ignored those so you seem to have come to this topic seeming out of concern of the UK undermining the creaking EU project.
If as you say you and your friends have such a leis affair attitude then why do you feel the need to address the subject?
Oh no far from irrational Brits I think the lady doth protest to much on this one and have merely revealed your own fears of the UK leaving.
I can provide no sources on this, but somebody on twitter was saying that the last minute rush of voters to register could be problematic, because they have to be verified at local council level.
10 days left + 1 million new voters to verify = clusterfeth.
And Vote Leave may seek a judicial review on this.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can provide no sources on this, but somebody on twitter was saying that the last minute rush of voters to register could be problematic, because they have to be verified at local council level.
10 days left + 1 million new voters to verify = clusterfeth.
And Vote Leave may seek a judicial review on this.
I think whoever loses will seek a judicial review. Whichever way the vote goes, somebody will end up spitting their dummy out.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can provide no sources on this, but somebody on twitter was saying that the last minute rush of voters to register could be problematic, because they have to be verified at local council level.
10 days left + 1 million new voters to verify = clusterfeth.
And Vote Leave may seek a judicial review on this.
I think whoever loses will seek a judicial review. Whichever way the vote goes, somebody will end up spitting their dummy out.
I don't want unelected judges ruling on who won or lost a democratic referendum, so let's hope it never comes to that.
I do like the fact that the founder of vote leave has been threatening a lawsuit over the deadline extension. Because British voices getting their say is good if it involves leaving europe, but is problematic if those voices disagree with him.
kronk wrote: Don't worry, UK. If that relationship doesn't work out, we'll be here. Waiting...
You know you want to...
America? The USA is yesterday's news. It's the People's Republic of China for me
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: I do like the fact that the founder of vote leave has been threatening a lawsuit over the deadline extension. Because British voices getting their say is good if it involves leaving europe, but is problematic if those voices disagree with him.
I think the whole thing has been badly handled - it's very shambolic. As I said earlier, I'm pretty sure that these new voters have to be verified at local council level, so there is potential for abuse.
It's not as though the Electoral Commission couldn't predict this - there was a last minute surge to vote for the Scottish Independence referendum.
Future War Cultist wrote: That's actually my sentiments as well. It's not like you didn't have plenty of time, and it takes minutes to do.
The worst thing is though, I feel like we'll never get a fair answer to this question now because they've ballsed it up so badly.
No, the worse thing is that the ones on the loosing side will bang on about registration being ballsed up. It hasn't been
Actually are there any figures for how many previously unregistered voters did register when able to do so?....need to look this up....Found it 1.65 million registered to vote in the lead up to the deadline.
This is against 7.5 million being incorrectly or un registered (2014 figures). So the problem effects every election which takes place.
The problem with the extended time (to Mr at least) is less that it was extended and more by how long.
Why does the fact that the website went down for 1 hour justify an extra 48 hour extention?
Everyone knew the rules - if you miss the deadline this is your fault and we shouldn't be pandering to you. To me this just goes into the same bracket as most of what the in crowd does, they feel that they don't have to play by the rules.
In other news, anyone seen the honours list? Makes you wonder how many of them top CEOs actually truly believe in the EU and how many just wanted a knighthood.
Excuse me, I like Nigel Farage and I voted for UKIP. Farage DOES speak for me.
Farage deserves credit for helping to get a referendum, but if I'm being honest, I couldn't give two hoots for Farage or UKIP. Never the less, my decision to vote leave goes beyond party politics, so I suppose it's a moot point
Farage once said that he would quit politics once his goal of getting us out of the EU is achieved. Obviously his party has outgrown him, and will likely endure after his departure and maybe even after a BREXIT (though a name change would be in order).
I don't view UKIP as a potential governing party, I view them as a sort of pressure group. The mainstream parties aren't listening to the electorate, so the electorate is turning to alternatives like the SNP and UKIP (who got more votes than the SNP). UKIP have done a great job of getting and keeping British membership of the EU on the political agenda, and being a general thorn in the side for the Tories. We wouldn't have gotten a referendum without UKIP undermining support for the Tories. Parties like UKIP and the SNP force the bigger parties to adapt and change their policies or risk electoral annihilation.
I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield, Tony Blair's former constituency) and I detest Labour so voting is somewhat pointless. Theres no point in voting for the Tories (who I also detest, but view as the lesser of two evils) because they have no chance of unseating Phil Wilson. So all I can do is abstain or make a (somewhat futile) statement by casting my vote for a party like UKIP and adding my vote to their national tally.
Basically, by voting for UKIP I hope to force the likes of the Tories or Labour to change.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Farage once said that he would quit politics once his goal of getting us out of the EU is achieved. Obviously his party has outgrown him, and will likely endure after his departure and maybe even after a BREXIT (though a name change would be in order).
I don't view UKIP as a potential governing party, I view them as a sort of pressure group. The mainstream parties aren't listening to the electorate, so the electorate is turning to alternatives like the SNP and UKIP (who got more votes than the SNP). UKIP have done a great job of getting and keeping British membership of the EU on the political agenda, and being a general thorn in the side for the Tories. We wouldn't have gotten a referendum without UKIP undermining support for the Tories. Parties like UKIP and the SNP force the bigger parties to adapt and change their policies or risk electoral annihilation.
I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield, Tony Blair's former constituency) and I detest Labour so voting is somewhat pointless. Theres no point in voting for the Tories (who I also detest, but view as the lesser of two evils) because they have no chance of unseating Phil Wilson. So all I can do is abstain or make a (somewhat futile) statement by casting my vote for a party like UKIP and adding my vote to their national tally.
Basically, by voting for UKIP I hope to force the likes of the Tories or Labour to change.
I understand your rational for voting UKIP, but as for Farage, I think he likes the spotlight too much, so even if it is BREXIT, expect to see UKIP continue, or morph into a new centre-right party, with Farage at the head, to rival the Tories.
Not a massive fan of Farage myself, but one thing I do like about him is if I asked him a question today, and asked him the same question next week I'd get the same answer (barring some kind of major event inbetween). This is a rare trait in a politician.
That said of late I do think that even that aspect of him has been failing - and he's almost becoming a liability to UKIP. I'd have liked to have seen him go through with his stepping down as leader and give Paul Nuttal a chance - who has always impressed me when he's been on the TV, even though I again don't always agree with what he says.
If this was the beginning of the end of the EU, what might the future hold for Europe?
It's doubtful that a member leaving who has opted out of all major EU projects so far will have a huge impact besides riling up some populist sentiment in some remaining countries. Currently a break up is just wishful thinking by skeptics.
Still, suppose the economic imbalance between north and south or the refugee crisis might break up the union in the future, which is not unthinkable, it would probably lead to new organization of a a smaller but further integrated core around Germany and a few regional blocs surrounding that. Most of the north-western mainland European economies are far too strongly connected to ever go back to a situation before the EEC where things could be arranged by simple trade agreements.
If this was the beginning of the end of the EU, what might the future hold for Europe?
It's doubtful that a member leaving who has opted out of all major EU projects so far will have a huge impact besides riling up some populist sentiment in some remaining countries. Currently a break up is just wishful thinking by skeptics.
Still, suppose the economic imbalance between north and south or the refugee crisis might break up the union in the future, which is not unthinkable, it would probably lead to new organization of a a smaller but further integrated core around Germany and a few regional blocs surrounding that. Most of the north-western mainland European economies are far too strongly connected to ever go back to a situation before the EEC where things could be arranged by simple trade agreements.
Tusk thinks differently though. Its the end of the world if Brexit happens. Really, he said as much.
And he speaks for you,Antario, being head of the EU.
If this was the beginning of the end of the EU, what might the future hold for Europe?
It's doubtful that a member leaving who has opted out of all major EU projects so far will have a huge impact besides riling up some populist sentiment in some remaining countries. Currently a break up is just wishful thinking by skeptics.
Still, suppose the economic imbalance between north and south or the refugee crisis might break up the union in the future, which is not unthinkable, it would probably lead to new organization of a a smaller but further integrated core around Germany and a few regional blocs surrounding that. Most of the north-western mainland European economies are far too strongly connected to ever go back to a situation before the EEC where things could be arranged by simple trade agreements.
Tusk thinks differently though. Its the end of the world if Brexit happens. Really, he said as much.
And he speaks for you,Antario, being head of the EU.
I'm sure Cameron speaks for you as PM of the UK
Look beyond the quote. Consider context and interests. Tusk a is a moderate nationalist, certainly not a federalist, and he is Polish (and a former Polish PM). Poland has many citizens living in the UK and heavily relies on NATO for protection against Russia, and Tusk is addressing a German audience on why they should give a damn.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm going to be devastated if we don't leave. I'm serious, it'll be the biggest mistake we'll ever make.
And the last mistake. Not sure if this is true or not, but according to this guy, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the mechanism which member states must invoke to withdraw from the Union, can be amended and removed without triggering a national referendum. When that happens, there will be no legal, peaceful mechanism by which we could withdraw.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm going to be devastated if we don't leave. I'm serious, it'll be the biggest mistake we'll ever make.
And the last mistake. Not sure if this is true or not, but according to this guy, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the mechanism which member states must invoke to withdraw from the Union, can be amended and removed without triggering a national referendum. When that happens, there will be no legal, peaceful mechanism by which we could withdraw.
Spoiler:
Wow, the anti-democratic treaty that was created because citizens rejected the Constitution could potentially be amended to be even more anti-democratic...........colour me sur.....wait no, I'm really not surprised at all.
agnosto wrote: lol, it's nice to know politics in Old Blimey is just as divisive and silly as it is here in the former colonies.
I'm laughing so much, I fear I'm going to break my ribs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do I Not Like That...the last battle of the Thames was probably the Raid on the Medway in 1667 when the Dutch sailed up the Thames.
I'm a Scottish nationalist, but by God, there are times when I love Britain, and this is one such time.
The whole thing is very silly on both sides, but I do like the quote from Nigel Garage. "Geldofs come to laugh at the poor people".
There's something deeply satisfying about seeing a rich millionaire in his big party boat coming to " laugh at the poor people" in their little fishing boats, and to tell us little people how we shouild be voting. As silly as the whole thing is, Geldofs intervention is a gift for the Leave campaign.
The photo of the little fishing boat hosing the big geldof party boat is priceless.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The whole thing is very silly on both sides, but I do like the quote from Nigel Garage. "Geldofs come to laugh at the poor people".
There's something deeply satisfying about seeing a rich millionaire in his big party boat coming to " laugh at the poor people" in their little fishing boats, and to tell us little people how we shouild be voting. As silly as the whole thing is, Geldofs intervention is a gift for the Leave campaign.
The photo of the little fishing boat hosing the big geldof party boat is priceless.
I somebody offered me the choice of 8 more days of this, or settling the vote with a naval battle, I'd take the naval battle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedmeister wrote: This is brilliant. I honestly thought this was a bit of satire, but they're having a mock battle on the Thames!
Geldolf being sprayed by fire hoses!
I'm surprised that Farage's boat never hit an iceberg or an old WW2 mine that was 'conveniently' floating around
There's an on going thread about British Comedy Vs. American Comedy.
Well, you can shut that thread down now, because today's events have shown that American Comedy can never match the best of British.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: "Trawlermen are trying to board Bob Geldof's boat outside parliament. Not a joke. Police intervening."
...
...least it's not raining anyway eh ?
..5...4....3...2.....
I'm pretty sure that not only does the Thames not fall under the Met police's jurisdiction, but it's still governed by old Medieval laws on piracy and high seas boarding
.
Which side will invoke the spirit of Nelson and win the day?
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka, you need to use offsite hosting and image tags -- like above -- if you wish to share any such images.
Reds8n
Nigel Farage comments on the Thames Flotilla rally. He makes some good points - apparently the flotilla was organised by an independent Leave campaign group of fishermen, who're protesting at the 'disastrous' effect the EU has had on their industry (Nigel cites a figure that British fisherman are allocated just 20% of the fishing quotas for British waters).
And then along comes the rich millionaire Geldof to lecture the ignorant Proles and tell them how to vote...
SilverMK2 wrote: And the main reason fisherpeople have an issue is because Farage couldn't be fethed to do the job he was elected, paid and claimed expenses for...
You really think it was within Nigel Farage's power to stop 80% of the British waters' fishing quota being allocated to foreign fishermen?
SilverMK2 wrote: And the main reason fisherpeople have an issue is because Farage couldn't be fethed to do the job he was elected, paid and claimed expenses for...
You really think it was within Nigel Farage's power to stop 80% of the British waters' fishing quota being allocated to foreign fishermen?
Maybe.Maybe not. We'll never know, he never bothered showing up!
...and I thought the US election is going to place... this is simply bizarre.
You should see the clips of angry members of the public swearing at our Prime Minister in TV debates. I don't think the USA has a direct equivalent does it, where the President can be directly challenged and held to account by members of the public and the Opposition?
SilverMK2 wrote: And the main reason fisherpeople have an issue is because Farage couldn't be fethed to do the job he was elected, paid and claimed expenses for...
You really think it was within Nigel Farage's power to stop 80% of the British waters' fishing quota being allocated to foreign fishermen?
Maybe.Maybe not. We'll never know, he never bothered showing up!
One could argue that he doesn't wish to legitimize the EU Parliament by actively participating in the process. He was elected on a campaign manifesto of securing Britain's withdrawal from the EU so its hardly surprising he doesn't wish to participate in a Parliament he doesn't wish his country to be a member of.
Don't the Irish Republican MP's of Northern Ireland (George Adams etc) do the same with the British Parliament, and refuse to take up their seats in the House of Commons? Do they get the same criticisms as Farage for not attending Parliament when theres a vote that affects Northern Ireland?
SilverMK2 wrote: And the main reason fisherpeople have an issue is because Farage couldn't be fethed to do the job he was elected, paid and claimed expenses for...
You really think it was within Nigel Farage's power to stop 80% of the British waters' fishing quota being allocated to foreign fishermen?
Maybe.Maybe not. We'll never know, he never bothered showing up!
One could argue that he doesn't wish to legitimize the EU Parliament by actively participating in the process. He was elected on a campaign manifesto of securing Britain's withdrawal from the EU so its hardly surprising he doesn't wish to participate in a Parliament he doesn't wish his country to be a member of.
Don't the Irish Republican MP's of Northern Ireland (George Adams etc) do the same with the British Parliament, and refuse to take up their seats in the House of Commons? Do they get the same criticisms as Farage for not attending Parliament when theres a vote that affects Northern Ireland?
If he didn't want to participate he shouldn't have stood for election or drawn his salary and claimed his expenses. He disenfranchised those fishermen by removing their voice from the discussion by not turning up to do the job he was elected to do, which is to represent Britain's interests.
Same is true of the Sinn Fein MPs in Northern Ireland
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Nigel Farage comments on the Thames Flotilla rally. He makes some good points - apparently the flotilla was organised by an independent Leave campaign group of fishermen, who're protesting at the 'disastrous' effect the EU has had on their industry (Nigel cites a figure that British fisherman are allocated just 20% of the fishing quotas for British waters).
And then along comes the rich millionaire Geldof to lecture the ignorant Proles and tell them how to vote...
The Christina S, a 72-metre-long pelagic trawler, was one of two largest vessels to take part in the river protest organised by Scottish skippers heading to Westminster to call for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
The Christina S now owned by Peter and J Johnstone a company controlled by major fishing firm Andrew Marr International, which controls 12 per cent of all UK fishing subsidies through a series of subsidiary companies, according to Greenpeace.
The 2016 Sunday Times Rich List said Andrew Marr and his family are worth £122m - making them the 825th richest family in the UK.
Looking back at yesterday's events on the Thames, I still can't believe it happened. Totally surreal
Last year at the General Election, one of the writers for The Thick of It, said the reason he gave up writing satire was that it couldn't compete with real life events like Ed Miliband's tombstones
A week ago, If somebody had told me that Bob Geldof would be clashing on the Thames with Nigel Farage, I would have called them mad.
Voted to stay in (postal vote), not heard a single, convincing argument for leaving and having a SO who is from Europe, would like her to be staying around and not having to go through the process of applying for a visa.
Azza007 wrote: Voted to stay in (postal vote), not heard a single, convincing argument for leaving and having a SO who is from Europe, would like her to be staying around and not having to go through the process of applying for a visa.
Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.
There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.
notprop wrote: Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.
There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.
Apart from those not earning above £35,000 a year after 5 years, whom will be deported based on legislation that came into effect as of April this year...
But no. No foreigners being cast out at all. That would never ever happen.
We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........
£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.
Azza007 wrote: Voted to stay in (postal vote), not heard a single, convincing argument for leaving
Quite so. Leave have had a year to prepare, months to properly organise, and it's just been droning on about immigrants and vague promises of 'control' without outlining what form of control that might be, who would have it, so on, so on. It's a cynical campaign designed to appeal to vague revolutionary ideals. It's easy to suggest that massive change will bring about the exact change you want to see, and that's all that's happened. People are lining up to ruin the country for generations (I wonder, in the event of Brexit, if I'll live long enough to see us go cap in hand back to the table). Meanwhile various corporations, politicians and the like are maneuvering themselves into positions of receiving huge windfalls in the event of all this 'EU bureaucracy' going away.
A small group of already wealthy and influential people are going to make themselves far more so, and they've managed to convince a grassroots core of the working electorate to push for it.
Riquende wrote: ..........A small group of already wealthy and influential people are going to make themselves far more so, and they've managed to convince a grassroots core of the working electorate to push for it.
Is that the already wealthy and influential people that are for Leave or staying In?
As a poor deluded prolle I just need you to let me know who's hoodwinking me so I know who to be outraged at?
notprop wrote: We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........
£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.
Ah, I forgot that people from abroad only ever live in the south. My bad I guess those in the North where wages are lower on average will just have to make do, then?
Trained Carers or Nurses. Highly-skilled, low-paid work that often falls to those from the EU that are willing to work for lower wages whilst still having the relevant qualifications. If we leave the EU then a large number will not be earning the required £35k and will likely be deported. We already have problems with the care industry and NHS due to lack of nurses and carers, this will only exacerbate the issue.
The point that people seem to be completely ignoring is that wages are not necessarily directly related to skill or use. A number of creative industries won't be earning above £35k. A lot of teachers won't be earning above £35k. I saw an article about a charity where the founder will likely be kicked out because, whilst they help a large number of people, their wages are low enough that Theresa May considers them to not contribute to the country enough.
notprop wrote: Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.
There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.
Apart from those not earning above £35,000 a year after 5 years, whom will be deported based on legislation that came into effect as of April this year...
But no. No foreigners being cast out at all. That would never ever happen.
In all fairness, that legislation has been brought in to apply to people from outside the EU, because they're the only people our government has control over the immigration to this country of. I was chatting with a Pakistani taxi driver the other day who owns his own local cab firm, and he was telling me how dismayed he was he couldn't bring his mum over because immigration rules have become so tight for people from outside the EU as knee jerk response to high levels of immigration to the country. The gentleman in question said he and his brother had been here for 35 years, and make six figures between them.
Once we're no longer obliged to accept immigration from within the EU, we would be able to adjust immigration laws as to what best suits our needs as a nation, and fast track/exclude certain job types/compassionate grounds more efficiently. One system, and all that. It's a little false to point at a piece of legislation enacted as a knee-jerk to contemporary situations, and assume that would automatically continue to be the case ad infinitum. The entire immigration system would have to be overhauled regardless in the event of a Leave vote, so I think we can all safely assume that no piece of legislation currently in existence is necessarily a guide as to what would occur afterwards.
It's a good thing to remember: No (British) legislation is forever.
notprop wrote: Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.
There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.
Apart from those not earning above £35,000 a year after 5 years, whom will be deported based on legislation that came into effect as of April this year...
But no. No foreigners being cast out at all. That would never ever happen.
In all fairness, that legislation has been brought in to apply to people from outside the EU, because they're the only people our government has control over the immigration to this country of. I was chatting with a Pakistani taxi driver the other day who owns his own local cab firm, and he was telling me how dismayed he was he couldn't bring his mum over because immigration rules have become so tight for people from outside the EU as knee jerk response to high levels of immigration to the country. The gentleman in question said he and his brother had been here for 35 years, and make six figures between them.
Once we're no longer obliged to accept immigration from within the EU, we would be able to adjust immigration laws as to what best suits our needs as a nation, and fast track/exclude certain job types/compassionate grounds more efficiently. One system, and all that. It's a little false to point at a piece of legislation enacted as a knee-jerk to contemporary situations, and assume that would automatically continue to be the case ad infinitum. The entire immigration system would have to be overhauled regardless in the event of a Leave vote, so I think we can all safely assume that no piece of legislation currently in existence is necessarily a guide as to what would occur afterwards.
It's a good thing to remember: No (British) legislation is forever.
Well said:
I have a friend who is British from India decent and he now has to live in India because he married a girl from there and didn’t earn enough to be classed as being able to support her over here.
If anything I view the EU and the remainers as the 'racists' one – who want an entirely different set of rules just for the white Europeans, otherwise you should get out of the country. Outside the EU we could introduce fair immigration laws, that actually make sense.
notprop wrote: We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........
£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.
Who have been told that they don't have a job earning enough for them to stay, but they're not allowed to look for a job, but we'll just say they can stay until August. Then we'll deport them.
Yes, nobody's going to get shafted by this sort of thing at all.
Except it is not just for white europeans, it is for all europeans.
You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.
Stranger83 wrote: If anything I view the EU and the remainers as the 'racists' one – who want an entirely different set of rules just for the white Europeans, otherwise you should get out of the country. Outside the EU we could introduce fair immigration laws, that actually make sense.
I'm sorry, what? What on earth gave you the impression that I approve of the legislation? I think using money as a definition of people's worth is fething disgusting.
Also, what is it with people saying that if only we leave the EU, all of those things that are unfair will be fixed?
"outside the EU we could do X more fairly, because the government has been very fair and balanced with all of its legislation thus far and would never place unfair restrictions on people"
notprop wrote: We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........
£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.
Who have been told that they don't have a job earning enough for them to stay, but they're not allowed to look for a job, but we'll just say they can stay until August. Then we'll deport them.
Yes, nobody's going to get shafted by this sort of thing at all.
Stop and think, would you?
Why do you think that legislation exists? Immigration from the EU is so high, and putting such a severe strain on infrastructure, services and housing, that the Government was forced to enact knee jerk legislation as Ketara puts it to cut down on immigration elsewhere. If we left the EU, we could repeal that legislation and treat everyone from all the world equally, and overall the standard criteria for remaining in this country would be relaxed.
Please explain how its fair that white Europeans get an automatic right to immigrate to Britain, whilst non-White people from the rest of the world must be subjected to such harsh controls?
You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.
What makes you think this Government will still exist in its current form after the Referendum? A Leave vote will end Cameron and Osborne.
What the hell does this have to do with race? And what on earth makes you think that the Government actually will enact a better set of immigration controls? Knee-jerk legislation is what the UK government does, ALL THE TIME. Expecting them to come up with a measured response immediately after leaving the EU, while all the political parties are desperately infighting and trying to look tough on immigration, is... optimistic.
Also, what is it with people saying that if only we leave the EU, all of those things that are unfair will be fixed?
"outside the EU we could do X more fairly, because the government has been very fair and balanced with all of its legislation thus far and would never place unfair restrictions on people"
Errrr.....historical awareness and political context? The country requires immigration. This is a fact. People have been immigrating to this country since before the EU. Fact. People will immigrate to this country after we leave the EU (assuming it happens). Fact. The House of Commons can undo/alter any legislation it enacts. Fact. The current immigration laws are designed for our current system, under which European immigration levels are uncontrollable. Fact.
With these facts under our belt, it does not require a great leap of imagination to understand that should we leave the EU, our current rules will be shaken up, on account of that fact that we won't just be recruiting from the EU, but rather globally for immigrants. Whjy? Because we will have no choice to get the immigration levels we require.
I read an article from small gaming developer the other day who said that if he wanted to hire from within the EU, it required practically no effort whatsoever, but outside the EU? It was like squeezing blood from rock. So many forms and qualifications. The reason that this has become the case (historically speaking), is because immigration from outside the EU is the only immigration under the control of the government. So naturally, to try and cut down on immigration figures without pissing off Europe, those are the ones that have been targeted for the extra thumbscrew application process treatment.
If we leave the EU therefore, in order to maintain immigration at rates that are economically beneficial, the process will need to be simplified, and without European considerations, it will cease to be the political hot potato it is now. Therefore it will be an easy change to make. If one government fecks up and misses it, or only gets it half right? The next one can have a shot at it. No time limit on making new legislation after all.
Please note that this is coming from someone who regards the current immigration levels as having been a disaster to date due to the strain on public services it has caused, but is fully aware immigrants pay their way, and believes European immigration is a self-rectifying problem regardless (there are no new mass waves from new EU joinees remaining).
Basically what you guys are saying is you hate the Tories so you're voting to stay? Thats a rather shallow and short term perspective. Governments come and go. The Tories won't be in office forever.
What the hell does this have to do with race? And what on earth makes you think that the Government actually will enact a better set of immigration controls? Knee-jerk legislation is what the UK government does, ALL THE TIME. Expecting them to come up with a measured response immediately after leaving the EU, while all the political parties are desperately infighting and trying to look tough on immigration, is... optimistic.
And why is it that they're trying to look tough on immigration?
Decades of excessively high immigration from the EU has put too much strain on housing, services and infrastructure to the point that voters are taking notice and its becoming a big political issue. If we left the EU, and got immigration back under control, it wouldn't be such an issue anymore and the political agenda would move on. Parties would no longer need to look tough on immigration to avoid losing votes, and the knee jerk responses would stop (or rather, we'd get knee jerk responses to whatever the next big issue is).
Stranger83 wrote: If anything I view the EU and the remainers as the 'racists' one – who want an entirely different set of rules just for the white Europeans, otherwise you should get out of the country. Outside the EU we could introduce fair immigration laws, that actually make sense.
I'm sorry, what? What on earth gave you the impression that I approve of the legislation? I think using money as a definition of people's worth is fething disgusting.
Also, what is it with people saying that if only we leave the EU, all of those things that are unfair will be fixed?
"outside the EU we could do X more fairly, because the government has been very fair and balanced with all of its legislation thus far and would never place unfair restrictions on people"
I've highlighted the key word in your comment for you.
Why do we say that outside the EU we COULD get a fair immigration policy? Because outside the EU we COULD get a fair immigration policy. Whilst we are inside the EU we cannot have a fair policy as we'll always have to favour EU migrants (putting the EU first is after all the founding principle of the EU).
How do I know we'll get one? Because I believe that the majority of people in this country want a fair immigration system, which means if a party wants to get into power then they will have to offer one. This is how Democracy works, I appreciate after 40 years of ‘EU democracy’ (i.e. being dictated to by people) this might come as a shock, but in a true democracy power lies with the people.
How do I know we'll get one? Because I believe that the majority of people in this country want a fair immigration system, which means if a party wants to get into power then they will have to offer one. This is how Democracy works, I appreciate after 40 years of ‘EU democracy’ (i.e. being dictated to by people) this might come as a shock, but in a true democracy power lies with the people.
Are we really going to do the whole "real democracy!!!11!!" schtick for the umpteenth time in this thread?
If the people of the UK want a fair immigration system outside the EU then the party that offers this will the election and we'll get the system. Inside the EU the party that offers this might get it to power in the UK, but as proven by Camerons 'big renegotiation deal' the EU would just turn it down.
If people insist on coming to the thread, not reading the previous pages to see whats been discussed and then insist that losing control of who creates the laws which govern your life doesn't matter, then yes.
How do I know we'll get one? Because I believe that the majority of people in this country want a fair immigration system, which means if a party wants to get into power then they will have to offer one. This is how Democracy works, I appreciate after 40 years of ‘EU democracy’ (i.e. being dictated to by people) this might come as a shock, but in a true democracy power lies with the people.
Are we really going to do the whole "real democracy!!!11!!" schtick for the umpteenth time in this thread?
You might not care about it but others do. You're free to stop reading this thread if you're not interesting in discussing it.
I just noticed that in the bill which was handed by Facebook tothe conservative party for applying likes to articles for them they used a different name to the one they label themselves as - on the invoice they are not the "conservative party" they are actually the "conservative and unionist party"
SirDonlad wrote: I just noticed that in the bill which was handed by Facebook tothe conservative party for applying likes to articles for them they used a different name to the one they label themselves as - on the invoice they are not the "conservative party" they are actually the "conservative and unionist party"
You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.
What makes you think this Government will still exist in its current form after the Referendum? A Leave vote will end Cameron and Osborne.
You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.
What makes you think this Government will still exist in its current form after the Referendum? A Leave vote will end Cameron and Osborne.
And they'll be replaced with who?
People who are just as useless and unqualified.
Right, but they'll be useless and unqualified people that we, the British electorate, chose. Can you say the same about Jean Claude Juncker, or the other Presidents of the EU?
You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.
What makes you think this Government will still exist in its current form after the Referendum? A Leave vote will end Cameron and Osborne.
And they'll be replaced with who?
People who are just as useless and unqualified.
Eh. For every five governments or so, you tend to find one is an unmitigated disaster, one is effective and generally turns out to have been good for the country, and three are placeholders. The last effective one was probably Thatcher (and I'd argue she was the economic shot in the arm the country needed, despite the vast suffering it caused), and Broon was the disaster. By that logic, we're due a decent one in the next round or two.
Without wanting to get into the argument of ‘which is more democratic in general’ the fact is the EU is less democratic to the people of the UK.
If we don’t like Cameron we vote out all the conservative MPs and get a new leader, if we don’t like Junker what do we do? Even if we voted out all the MEPs (which would be unfair really as most voted against Junker in the first place) we’d still be stuck with him because other countries like him.
Is the EU less democratic that the UK? Maybe, there are arguments both ways. Is the EU less democratically accountable to the UK than the UK parliament? Definitely and I fail to see how you can argue it isn’t.
SirDonlad wrote: I just noticed that in the bill which was handed by Facebook tothe conservative party for applying likes to articles for them they used a different name to the one they label themselves as - on the invoice they are not the "conservative party" they are actually the "conservative and unionist party"
I've never heared them called that or even refer to themselves as that in their own pamphlets - i thought that was odd and kinda funny given the new 'union' they're getting into.
But good for you that you know about that already. have a biscuit.
SirDonlad wrote: I just noticed that in the bill which was handed by Facebook tothe conservative party for applying likes to articles for them they used a different name to the one they label themselves as - on the invoice they are not the "conservative party" they are actually the "conservative and unionist party"
I've never heared them called that or even refer to themselves as that in their own pamphlets - i thought that was odd and kinda funny given the new 'union' they're getting into.
But good for you that you know about that already. have a biscuit.
If you guys let your conservatives unionize over a century ago it's no wonder that your politics are crazy.
SirDonlad wrote: I just noticed that in the bill which was handed by Facebook tothe conservative party for applying likes to articles for them they used a different name to the one they label themselves as - on the invoice they are not the "conservative party" they are actually the "conservative and unionist party"
I've never heared them called that or even refer to themselves as that in their own pamphlets - i thought that was odd and kinda funny given the new 'union' they're getting into.
But good for you that you know about that already. have a biscuit.
If you guys let your conservatives unionize over a century ago it's no wonder that your politics are crazy.
I'll have you know that naval hosepipe battle in front of Parliament is aperfectly respectable way to settle political differences.
Stranger83 wrote: Without wanting to get into the argument of ‘which is more democratic in general’ the fact is the EU is less democratic to the people of the UK.
If we don’t like Cameron we vote out all the conservative MPs and get a new leader, if we don’t like Junker what do we do? Even if we voted out all the MEPs (which would be unfair really as most voted against Junker in the first place) we’d still be stuck with him because other countries like him.
Is the EU less democratic that the UK? Maybe, there are arguments both ways. Is the EU less democratically accountable to the UK than the UK parliament? Definitely and I fail to see how you can argue it isn’t.
I'm originally from Belfast. None of the major UK parties even stand there, I find the arguments "If we don't like the current government, we can vote it out and get a new one!" and "Oh no, a much bigger group of politicians who we have no say over are in charge of us" peculiar on a variety of levels. They make me chuckle.
Ketara wrote: I'll have you know that naval hosepipe battle in front of Parliament is aperfectly respectable way to settle political differences.
THIS.
As a model for UK politics post-brexit i think it's bordering on fautless - i'd run as an MP if i knew i could settle the differences between points with a naval battle with hoses!!
Stranger83 wrote: Without wanting to get into the argument of ‘which is more democratic in general’ the fact is the EU is less democratic to the people of the UK.
If we don’t like Cameron we vote out all the conservative MPs and get a new leader, if we don’t like Junker what do we do? Even if we voted out all the MEPs (which would be unfair really as most voted against Junker in the first place) we’d still be stuck with him because other countries like him.
Is the EU less democratic that the UK? Maybe, there are arguments both ways. Is the EU less democratically accountable to the UK than the UK parliament? Definitely and I fail to see how you can argue it isn’t.
I'm originally from Belfast. None of the major UK parties even stand there, I find the arguments "If we don't like the current government, we can vote it out and get a new one!" and "Oh no, a much bigger group of politicians who we have no say over are in charge of us" peculiar on a variety of levels. They make me chuckle.
You're right Northern Ireland gets out voted all the time - as does Scotland and Wales.
This is why they have spent years arguing for devolution and in Scotlands case even had a referendum trying to get out of the UK.
The UK in response has been gradually handing powers to the devolved parliaments (you can argue that these are the wrong powers or they are not going fast enough but it is happening). But your post seems to imply you would like more power – which is fair enough, I would too.
I find it odd however that given that you are used to a system that meant you are outvoted all the time, and having fought for years for limited say over who governs you, that you would vote for a system that removes all of that and gives it to someone even further removed from yourself. It’s a kind of logic I just don’t understand. Particularly when this entity is trying to take more powers for itself – not less.
We could turn the whole thing into a national tourist attraction. Set up water cannons on the bridges along the Thames, so bystanders can join in and hose the MP's battling own below on the Thames, just like those children's water cannon you get in theme parks along the routes of water rides.
Power should be devolved downwards, not sucked upwards, as is the case with the EU.
Right now, there are four layers of government (three if you live in England); local councils, local assemblies, Westminster, and the EU...parliament I guess I'll call it. And the one at the top, the EU, wants to suck all the power away from the lower three.
If we left the EU, that would remove a whole layer of government, which is always a good thing in my opinion.
In an ideal world (in my opinion), the UK would have a separate assembly for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, with local councils beneath them, and Westminster at the top as the one for the UK as a whole. The councils deal with local issues, the assemblies deal with regional issues (and by that I mean police, prisons, schools etc) whilst Westminster deals with foreign policy, the currency, defense etc.
And Englands assembly would be somewhere in the north, to give somewhere else besides London a chance.
Future War Cultist wrote: Power should be devolved downwards, not sucked upwards, as is the case with the EU.
Right now, there are four layers of government (three if you live in England); local councils, local assemblies, Westminster, and the EU...parliament I guess I'll call it. And the one at the top, the EU, wants to suck all the power away from the lower three.
If we left the EU, that would remove a whole layer of government, which is always a good thing in my opinion.
In an ideal world (in my opinion), the UK would have a separate assembly for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, with local councils beneath them, and Westminster at the top as the one for the UK as a whole. The councils deal with local issues, the assemblies deal with regional issues (and by that I mean police, prisons, schools etc) whilst Westminster deals with foreign policy, the currency, defense etc.
And Englands assembly would be somewhere in the north, to give somewhere else besides London a chance.
York perhaps?
Didn't we have some sort of vote or referendum on establishing a Northern England assembly? As I recall, it would have treated the North as a separate region from the south of England. I was too young to vote at the time, but I would have opposed it. I don't like the idea of splitting up England into different regional assemblies. However, I might support a future referendum that proposes a seperate assembly for the whole of England.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Her death has just been confirmed.
You're right Northern Ireland gets out voted all the time - as does Scotland and Wales.
This is why they have spent years arguing for devolution and in Scotlands case even had a referendum trying to ge in response has been gradually handing powers to the devolved parliaments (you can argue that these are the wrong powers or they are not going fast enough but it is happening). But your post seems to imply you would like more power – which is fair enough, I would too.
I find it odd however that given that you are used to a system that meant you are outvoted all the time, and having fought for years for limited say over who governs you, that you would vote for a system that removes all of that and gives it to someone even further removed from yourself. It’s a kind of logic I just don’t understand. Particularly when this entity is trying to take more powers for itself – not less.
It's more that I find it amusing that the UK find that it's OK to ignore bits on the country, but as soon as it happens to the UK itself it's a hideous travesty against democracy.
My thoughts are with Jo Cox's family at this time. A horrific tragedy.
@ Shadow Captain Edithae
Yes, that idea was for regional assemblies, which would have effectively divided England up into less than one complete country. My idea would keep England as one unified country.
Also, in my system, because of the changed nature of the Westminster government, I would make it so that voters do directly elect the Prime Minister.
@ Graphite
You have a point there, which is why I would give the devolved governments even more powers. The power to raise taxes to spend on matters that fall under their jurisdiction, like the police, local NHS, schools, DVLA etc. Make it so that the UK is literally four different countries who share the one currency, military and foreign policy. A proper union to show up the EU.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But we're not ignoring them. They demanded devolution and they got it. Scotland demanded a referendum on independence, and they voted to stay.
Except that doesn't help parts of England which get ignored so more money can be thrown at London and the South.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But we're not ignoring them. They demanded devolution and they got it. Scotland demanded a referendum on independence, and they voted to stay.
Except that doesn't help parts of England which get ignored so more money can be thrown at London and the South.
We weren't talking about North England, we were talking about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Don't move the goalposts.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yes, that idea was for regional assemblies, which would have effectively divided England up into less than one complete country. My idea would keep England as one unified country.
Sooo... the special snowflakes in Wales, NI and Scotland all get local control of things, but England is all just lumped in together despite having a population many multiple times the size of the others put together, with massive differences in population makeup, geography, etc?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But we're not ignoring them. They demanded devolution and they got it. Scotland demanded a referendum on independence, and they voted to stay.
Except that doesn't help parts of England which get ignored so more money can be thrown at London and the South.
We weren't talking about North England, we were talking about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Don't move the goalposts.
Actually, you responded to someone who said parts of the UK. The North of England is still part of the UK. And it isn't really moving the goalposts to point out that representation in the UK government is not very equally weighted in a discussion where people are complaining that the UK doesn't get enough representation in the EU.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But we're not ignoring them. They demanded devolution and they got it. Scotland demanded a referendum on independence, and they voted to stay.
This would be the vote where it was said over and over again how if Scotland left they'd not be in the EU and then they'd be in trouble right ?
.....
Of coursethat's opposed to this vote where the leader of the SNP is telling everyone how much stronger we/countries are when we all stick together....
Future War Cultist wrote: Yes, that idea was for regional assemblies, which would have effectively divided England up into less than one complete country. My idea would keep England as one unified country.
Sooo... the special snowflakes in Wales, NI and Scotland all get local control of things, but England is all just lumped in together despite having a population many multiple times the size of the others put together, with massive differences in population makeup, geography, etc?
What? No. The idea was to mollify Nationalists with increased devolution to stave off the threat of secession. There is no Nationalistic desire for the North of England to break away from the rest of England, so why do we need a seperate assembly?
And you're overlooking the fact that we had a referendum on a Northern assembly and the North East overwhelmingly voted against it (well, the 50% who could be bothered to vote). Are you saying we should have a Northern England assembly whether we want one or not?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But we're not ignoring them. They demanded devolution and they got it. Scotland demanded a referendum on independence, and they voted to stay.
This would be the vote where it was said over and over again how if Scotland left they'd not be in the EU and then they'd be in trouble right ?
.....
Of coursethat's opposed to this vote where the leader of the SNP is telling everyone how much stronger we/countries are when we all stick together....
..Politics eh ?
I just don't think Salmond likes England very much. He wants a Union with the rest of Europe, but not England. Clearly he didn't want actual independence for Scotland, he just wanted independence from England.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Actually, you responded to someone who said parts of the UK. The North of England is still part of the UK. And it isn't really moving the goalposts to point out that representation in the UK government is not very equally weighted in a discussion where people are complaining that the UK doesn't get enough representation in the EU.
No I didn't. Stranger83 did not specify England, neither did Graphite and neither did I. The current chain of discussion was about the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Devolution, not the rejected English devloution. You're conflating two separate discussions.
We had a referendum on English devolution, and English voters rejected it. I don't understand why you're complaining - do you think we should disregard the result of that referendum and have English devolution anyway?
What? No. The idea was to mollify Nationalists with increased devolution to stave off the threat of secession. There is no Nationalistic desire for the North of England to break away from the rest of England, so why do we need a seperate assembly?
And you're overlooking the fact that we had a referendum on a Northern assembly and the North East overwhelmingly voted against it (well, the 50% who could be bothered to vote). Are you saying we should have a Northern England assembly whether we want one or not?
You said "my idea" not "this is what the people wanted/may be interested in"...
Very sad to see the Guardian newspaper make political capital out of this tragedy by blaming Farage for this poor woman's death. I feel disgusted...and I don't even like Farage...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Very sad to see the Guardian newspaper make political capital out of this tragedy by blaming Farage for this poor woman's death. I feel disgusted...and I don't even like Farage...
This is gutter politics.
On the on hand, we've got champagne socialists like Geldof who are gonna pounce on this to label UKIP, Farage, Gove, Johnson and the rest of Leave as murderous fascists.
And on the other, we're going to have the inevitable conspiracy theories claiming it was a False Flag planned by the Remain side to rig the election.
To be fething honest, we should probably just delay the referendum for a year. Its a utter fething mess and the murder of Jo Cox has made this whole saga into a very dark and ugly period of British history.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A writer from the Guardian is labelling Bob Geldof as the Remain campaign's 'Edstone'.
He (quite rightly) points out that Remain should have done nothing in response to Farage's flotilla. They should have just let Farage hang himself. But by sticking his nose in and stooping to "the same stupidity as Leave" with "stupid" Geldof's "stupid" boat with his "stupid" friends and their "stupid" sound system, he's ensured that Geldof sticking two fingers up to a flotilla of fishermen is the defining image of the day.
I'm a UKIP supporter, and even I admit that Nigel Farage sailing a flotilla down the Thames is embarrassing. But Geldof's response was a gift for Leave.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Very sad to see the Guardian newspaper make political capital out of this tragedy by blaming Farage for this poor woman's death. I feel disgusted...and I don't even like Farage...
This is gutter politics.
On the on hand, we've got champagne socialists like Geldof who are gonna pounce on this to label UKIP, Farage, Gove, Johnson and the rest of Leave as murderous fascists.
And on the other, we're going to have the inevitable conspiracy theories claiming it was a False Flag planned by the Remain side to rig the election.
To be fething honest, we should probably just delay the referendum for a year. Its a utter fething mess and the murder of Jo Cox has made this whole saga into a very dark and ugly period of British history.
You know what the worst part is? The time between Jo Cox's time of death and the guardian article is less THAN 2 HOURS...
Which means, as that poor woman was fighting for her life, the Guardian already had a draft written up for that article...
What the hell happened to British journalism? I have never felt this disgusted in a long time...
It's emerging that the suspect had a history of mental health problems, but before the facts are even established, one newspaper takes it upon itself to jump to conclusions...
Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
this was an opinion of the advocate general at the European Court of Justice (CJEU), not a ruling, and was made under the EU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, not human rights laws. The opinion – subject to a final ruling by the CJEU which would then be applied by a UK court – said that the deportation would breach the son’s right under the treaty to genuine enjoyment of the substance of his EU citizenship unless the UK could show that the mother’s conduct posed a serious threat to public security.
edit: jeez, thread moved on fast while i was typing...
There's no such thing as a "European declaration of human rights", and if you're talking about the European Convention on Human Rights, what does it have to do with the EU? I'm pretty sure this has ALSO been covered at least three times already in this thread.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Very sad to see the Guardian newspaper make political capital out of this tragedy by blaming Farage for this poor woman's death. I feel disgusted...and I don't even like Farage...
SirDonlad wrote: What does the European declaration of human rights cover that the universal declaration of human rights decided on by the united nations doesn't?
From a legal perspective it allows EU based legislators to overrule the British justice system on any matter they deem affected by said 'declaration'.
Not that they even need that to interfere to our detriment...
this was an opinion of the advocate general at the European Court of Justice (CJEU), not a ruling, and was made under the EU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, not human rights laws. The opinion – subject to a final ruling by the CJEU which would then be applied by a UK court – said that the deportation would breach the son’s right under the treaty to genuine enjoyment of the substance of his EU citizenship unless the UK could show that the mother’s conduct posed a serious threat to public security.
edit: jeez, thread moved on fast while i was typing...
Y'all be slightly confused on our relationship with The EU and the ECHR. This has been covered before and I shall say it once more.
The EU has nothing to do with the ECHR, there are EU courts and ECHR courts. Being a part of Europe or not does not effect our Human Rights Laws. Russia and Turkey are both signatories of the ECHR, but aren't members of the EU.
Under our Human Rights Act, that is what allows ECHR rulings to work in this country, and as a member we must have that act. It cannot be repealed without us leaving the ECHR, which we are not doing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's no such thing as a "European declaration of human rights", and if you're talking about the European Convention on Human Rights, what does it have to do with the EU? I'm pretty sure this has ALSO been covered at least three times already in this thread.
Okay, i've worked out what appears to have happened - i got mixed up between 'ECHR' and 'european declaration of human rights' because 'european declaration of human rights' is the first thing that comes up in the auto search when i type the word 'european' into google; it also gives search results for the 'european convention on human rights' instead.
I suspect that this is to help out the folks in the usa since a 'declaration' is so key in their history, but it doesn't cover up the fact i got that wrong.
someone posted a comment which claimed that the ECHR helped the poor people of britain in some new context and i was interested in how it did this where the existing human rights legislation could not.
notprop wrote: £35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.
Guess who generally earn less than this limit and are going to be significantly affected by having the banding set at £35k.....non-EU NHS staff and teachers.
I mean, I 'm not trying to suggest that the Tories might be trying to destabilise two major public systems that they want to privatise to benefit their mates by significant sums, I'm sure they have good reasons for picking tat number........
notprop wrote: My Mrs is a teacher and earns more than £35k as do the majority of her colleagues, some substantially more.
It is not a huge sum for a professional to attain.
I'm guessing this fits into your "Wages in the south" comment.
Not everywhere can be the south or London. Most areas in the country do not have that level of pay for teachers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: What the hell happened to British journalism? I have never felt this disgusted in a long time...
Eeeeh wasn't The Sun one of the (if not The) biggest selling papers in GB, and for a long time?
It's not just a trend with British journalism either. Journalism has never, ever been a "clean" field, and the TV culture from the late 90s onwards that has permeated through the masses hasn't exactly improved things either.
notprop wrote: My Mrs is a teacher and earns more than £35k as do the majority of her colleagues, some substantially more.
It is not a huge sum for a professional to attain.
I'm guessing this fits into your "Wages in the south" comment.
Not everywhere can be the south or London. Most areas in the country do not have that level of pay for teachers.
'Teacher pay' breaks down into separate demographics if we're honest. It's not just geography as noted, it's the level taught at, additional posts held within the school (Head of department, etc), the subject taught (science and maths teachers make far more than english or drama), the sex of the teacher and so on.
Generally speaking? When all is said and done, the average non trainee/new/unqualified teacher with no additional responsibilities outside of London makes around £30,000. That can change (for example, total jobs registers the average Science teacher at £39,000), but £35k is not so far distant or unlikely that a good teacher can't get it, even outside of London.
The ones who would most likely get hit by that, would be 'soft' subject female teachers based outside of London, who earn the least. And frankly as a nation, we have an over-abundance of psychology or english graduates with 2:2's from third tier universities who can easily replace any losses. What's more, since we do have that abundance of supply, it stands to reason that such teachers would be the least likely to be from abroad regardless (and thus susceptible to the changes).
I accept that this might not be the most humanistic reasoning, but I thought I'd put the economic position out there.
notprop wrote: My Mrs is a teacher and earns more than £35k as do the majority of her colleagues, some substantially more.
It is not a huge sum for a professional to attain.
I'm guessing this fits into your "Wages in the south" comment.
Not everywhere can be the south or London. Most areas in the country do not have that level of pay for teachers.
Pay for teachers is pretty much standardised (unions and all), with London weighting added if you are n that catchment. It only varies with experience, time served and management points from what I understand; there's also premiums added to entice teachers to particular schools. Pro rata in additional holiday allocation over other trades and the comparative salary will increase by nearly another 20%.
No sorry, I don't buy the poor teacher shtick or the poor Northerner one for that matter as costs are relative.
notprop wrote: My Mrs is a teacher and earns more than £35k as do the majority of her colleagues, some substantially more.
It is not a huge sum for a professional to attain.
I'm guessing this fits into your "Wages in the south" comment.
Not everywhere can be the south or London. Most areas in the country do not have that level of pay for teachers.
Pay for teachers is pretty much standardised (unions and all), with London weighting added if you are n that catchment. It only varies with experience, time served and management points from what I understand; there's also premiums added to entice teachers to particular schools. Pro rata in additional holiday allocation over other trades and the comparative salary will increase by nearly another 20%.
No sorry, I don't buy the poor teacher shtick or the poor Northerner one for that matter as costs are relative.
We're not talking about living costs though, we're talking about an arbitrary cut-off point below which people will be kicked out of the country.
It doesn't matter if things are cheaper in the north, they could have almost non-existent living costs and be able to afford a new car every year, but if a foreign teacher is earning less than £35k after 5 years then they'll be ejected from the country.
notprop wrote: And what I'm saying is that it really won't be very hard for them to attain it. Don't hang off the last 3 words and ignore the rest!
It doesn't just apply to teachers though (I'm not quite sure how this conversation has focussed on teachers so much tbh), it applies to a fair number of careers.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.
Just saw this passed around on Facebook by that Comedian, Jason Manford. Funny bloke and this comment is spot on:
Right I need to go to sleep! Been reading and replying to your Referendum comments for over an hour! There are still so many undecided people and that is the fault of both of the ineffectual campaigns.
Best of luck finding what you think is the right way to go, read what you can, even in publications you don't usually agree with. Try and read what people are saying even if you hate everything they stand for. Chat to your friends and family and even your children-at the end of the day, it's a decision that affects them the most.
Most importantly though, just be kind. Just because someone is voting Leave it doesn't make them an uneducated racist. And just because someone is voting Remain doesn't mean they're naive sheep! Be thankful that we live in a country where we are allowed to vote at all and be proud of our ancestors who got us this far.
The truth is, nobody knows anything! It's largely guess work and even the people who appear the most knowledgeable, those leaders who've let us down so badly, those who are using it for political gain and point scoring really don't know either. Nobody knows the future. The most important thing is, that you vote, for something, either way. That way you can look the next generation in the eye and say 'well, At least did something. I read what I could, I tried my best to understand it, I went with a gut feeling and I did it for you, for your future'.
Best of luck to you all,
Gnight,
Jason
Don't abstain - Vote!
Edit:
Just like to add, that I get the feeling that this vote really has engaged the nation. Was in the pub the other night and I heard plenty of debate getting bandied about. Even with my mates, three of us, I was for Leave, one was for remain and one was for don't know. There was plenty of debate going on. Usually, with General Elections, there's a feeling that you're voting for the same shade of grey. With the referendum, it does feel like you can make a difference. It's something that the main parties should take note of. Ideology is not dead, just ignored...
zedmeister wrote: Just saw this passed around on Facebook by that Comedian, Jason Manford. Funny bloke and this comment is spot on:
Right I need to go to sleep! Been reading and replying to your Referendum comments for over an hour! There are still so many undecided people and that is the fault of both of the ineffectual campaigns.
Best of luck finding what you think is the right way to go, read what you can, even in publications you don't usually agree with. Try and read what people are saying even if you hate everything they stand for. Chat to your friends and family and even your children-at the end of the day, it's a decision that affects them the most.
Most importantly though, just be kind. Just because someone is voting Leave it doesn't make them an uneducated racist. And just because someone is voting Remain doesn't mean they're naive sheep! Be thankful that we live in a country where we are allowed to vote at all and be proud of our ancestors who got us this far.
The truth is, nobody knows anything! It's largely guess work and even the people who appear the most knowledgeable, those leaders who've let us down so badly, those who are using it for political gain and point scoring really don't know either. Nobody knows the future. The most important thing is, that you vote, for something, either way. That way you can look the next generation in the eye and say 'well, At least did something. I read what I could, I tried my best to understand it, I went with a gut feeling and I did it for you, for your future'.
Best of luck to you all,
Gnight,
Jason
Don't abstain - Vote!
Edit:
Just like to add, that I get the feeling that this vote really has engaged the nation. Was in the pub the other night and I heard plenty of debate getting bandied about. Even with my mates, three of us, I was for Leave, one was for remain and one was for don't know. There was plenty of debate going on. Usually, with General Elections, there's a feeling that you're voting for the same shade of grey. With the referendum, it does feel like you can make a difference. It's something that the main parties should take note of. Ideology is not dead, just ignored...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.
Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.
The ambassadors of the 28 European Union member states had agreed to secrecy. "Under no circumstances" should the public learn what was said at the talks that took place on March 23rd, the European Commission warned during the meeting of the Permanent Representatives Committee. A staff member of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini even warned that Europe's reputation could be at stake.
Under the heading "TOP 37: Country fiches," the leading diplomats that day discussed a plan that the EU member states had agreed to: They would work together with dictatorships around the Horn of Africa in order to stop the refugee flows to Europe -- under Germany's leadership.
Yes, great idea, lets work with and give legitimacy to dictators, war criminals, repressive regimes and other scumbags to stop migrants. And how do you think these scumbags will stop migrants? Gaol? Beatings? State sponsored murder? Pick one...
The ambassadors of the 28 European Union member states had agreed to secrecy. "Under no circumstances" should the public learn what was said at the talks that took place on March 23rd, the European Commission warned during the meeting of the Permanent Representatives Committee. A staff member of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini even warned that Europe's reputation could be at stake.
Under the heading "TOP 37: Country fiches," the leading diplomats that day discussed a plan that the EU member states had agreed to: They would work together with dictatorships around the Horn of Africa in order to stop the refugee flows to Europe -- under Germany's leadership.
Yes, great idea, lets work with and give legitimacy to dictators, war criminals, repressive regimes and other scumbags to stop migrants. And how do you think these scumbags will stop migrants? Gaol? Beatings? State sponsored murder? Pick one...
That's just realpolitik in action. Germany and other EU members decide that the flow of migrant refugees into their countries is a detriment. They want it to stop. It's very difficult for them to stop it because once the refugees are on their doorstep it is very difficult to keep them out and/or forcibly relocate them back to their point of origin or somewhere else. The practical place to stop the flow of refugees is at the source. Where do most of the refugees come from? Nations in distress with horrible governments that are driving people away with their oppressive regimes. While working with such dictators is distasteful in regards to moral principles and appearances it is the best way to reduce the flood of refugees. If fewer refugees migrate then the EU countries are under less strain, the domestic social and political climate improves, the EU politicians gain favor in their respective countries and the people responsible for stopping the flow of refugees are foreign governments so even if they use violent and oppressive measure the EU politicians hands are clean. It's the best solution to the problem for them, it's just not going to be a very popular one domestically so they need to try to keep it a secret.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.
Please don't use a straw man, its rude. I never said that, and I don't think it. You're making a personal attack based on something I did not say.
It has everything to do with his far right politics, AND his mentall illness (possibly caused or aggravated by drug use).
Mentally ill people are more susceptible to the influences of extremists. People who are ill and sometimes lash out violently but otherwise do not go around plottimg mass murder, can fall under the influences of extremists (e.g. Islamist preachers) who manipulate them and focus their energies into something destructive like a terror attack.
Lone wolf Terrorists are often diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses. That doesn't excuse their actions, or mean that their views and beliefs are irrelevant. IIRC, the muslim who made a knife attack on a commuter at the leytonstone underground was diagnosed with a mentally illness. The killers of Lee Right were heavy cannabis users.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.
Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.
So? That does not make him a liar.
Yes, he has a personal crusade against drugs, yes he's biased. But that doesn't mean hes not telling the truth when he reports that terrorists and murderers who engage in random acts of violence against strangers were drug users. He does a lot of digging and dredges up old police reports, arrests etc. Its surprising how much of a correlation there is between drug use, violence and mental illness.
The ambassadors of the 28 European Union member states had agreed to secrecy. "Under no circumstances" should the public learn what was said at the talks that took place on March 23rd, the European Commission warned during the meeting of the Permanent Representatives Committee. A staff member of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini even warned that Europe's reputation could be at stake.
Under the heading "TOP 37: Country fiches," the leading diplomats that day discussed a plan that the EU member states had agreed to: They would work together with dictatorships around the Horn of Africa in order to stop the refugee flows to Europe -- under Germany's leadership.
Yes, great idea, lets work with and give legitimacy to dictators, war criminals, repressive regimes and other scumbags to stop migrants. And how do you think these scumbags will stop migrants? Gaol? Beatings? State sponsored murder? Pick one...
Great. After the Arab Spring, the last thing we need is an "African Summer".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.
Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.
So? That does not make him a liar.
Yes, he has a personal crusade against drugs, yes he's biased. But that doesn't mean hes not telling the truth when he reports that terrorists and murderers who engage in random acts of violence against strangers were drug users. He does a lot of digging and dredges up old police reports, arrests etc. Its surprising how much of a correlation there is between drug use, violence and mental illness.
And? Correlation is not causation, which is what he wants to believe and attempts to lead his readers into believing. There is also a massive correlation between poverty and violence and lots of other types of crime but he doesn't rant about that every time.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats exactly what I expected. I wonder whether the guy was a cannabis user too. Drugs and mental illness are two very common factors in murders like this. (The Lee Rigby murders for instance were cannabis users, according to Peter Hitchens at the Mail on Sunday).
I bet he drinks alcohol, too, and wears shoes and likes to eat spaghetti. His far-right politics obviously have nothing to do with it. He was mentally ill and smoked pot and we all know what those people are like.
Not to mention that Peter Hitchens is not a reliable source of information on drugs. For example, he believes that addiction is a "fantasy" despite, you know, scientific evidence and all that. In fact many of his ideas and beliefs are pretty idiotic.
So? That does not make him a liar.
Yes, he has a personal crusade against drugs, yes he's biased. But that doesn't mean hes not telling the truth when he reports that terrorists and murderers who engage in random acts of violence against strangers were drug users. He does a lot of digging and dredges up old police reports, arrests etc. Its surprising how much of a correlation there is between drug use, violence and mental illness.
And? Correlation is not causation, which is what he wants to believe and attempts to lead his readers into believing. There is also a massive correlation between poverty and violence and lots of other types of crime but he doesn't rant about that every time.
No, but Correlation is grounds for further investigation. If theres a strong correlation, then it should be investigated. Thats what Hitchens is calling for.
I think that in honour of our fallen MP, that we reserve conversation about it to the other thread and not bring her death into the EU referendum debate.
I'm from a Catholic family in Belfast. I'm the only one voting to leave in my family. They tell me that the reasons why they're voting to stay is because they're worried that the money the EU invests here will not be given by the British government if we leave the EU, that the boarder between here and the Republic will be closed if we leave, and that they genuinely believe the British government will hammer us without the EU as a retraining bolt. That last one is important. My brother and father are very anti-British government but for different reasons. My brother is a typical socialist Corbyn fanboy student, and my dad is from the 'Troubles' generation. I'm struggling to get through to them, because they won't even let me talk. They both drown me out the second I try to put a point across. I don't think I can persuade them to change their mind.
Because I think the EU is a busted flush that's doomed to failure, and we need to get out while we still can. Also, it's extremely undemocratic, bloated, wasteful and deceitful. Everything it does is behind close doors. It's builders lied to us for years, and it's designed to bypass democratic opinion. It's scary how much it's modeled on the Soviet Union. It wastes millions and demands more in return, hasn't once signed off on its accounts the whole time it's been running, is killing the Mediterranean countries with its idiotic currency, has destroyed our fishing industry, and it's attitude is generally 'you need us to regulate every aspect of your life because you're too stupid to make your own decisions'. Not to mention its desire to build its own army to enact its own foreign policy.
Future War Cultist wrote: it's extremely undemocratic, bloated, wasteful and deceitful. Everything it does is behind close doors. It's builders lied to us for years, and it's designed to bypass democratic opinion. It's scary how much it's modeled on the Soviet Union. ... it's attitude is generally 'you need us to regulate every aspect of your life because you're too stupid to make your own decisions'. Not to mention its desire to build its own army...
I'd vote Out if that were close to reality.
There has been so much propaganda about "undemocratic"... "unelected officials" which doesn't resemble reality. The EU has fewer bureaucrats, for the entire organisation than we have in the UK alone. Elected officials get to vote on all laws.
I saw somewhere one Ukip founder talk about the secret project at the heart of the EU - but on investigation, there simply wasn't one.
Bloated and wasteful? In fact we pay very little into the EU compared with our GDP - it's pretty likely that if we were out of the EU we would still pay one way or another, either with tariffs, or paying EU costs to access its market. We'd be paying money and getting nothing back in terms of influence - that's surely more wasteful.
Which regulations do you find troubling? Because most of them turn out to either not exist, or be much of a big deal when you look at them. That's why so many businesses are in favour of the EU. We'd have to conform with most of those standards anyway, if we wanted to sell stuff into the EU. The main regulation are about competition, against things like price fixing. That's why JCB are one of the only two main companies in favour of Leave - as JCB was fined for price fixing.
Finally, re the EU Army. Some people have proposed it, I like you think it's an irrelevance. But the UK will always have the chance to veto it, were it seriously supposed. It's likely, too, that EVERY EU member's parliament would have to vote in favour. To decide your country's future on the basis of a plan that someone once suggested, which you can unilaterally stop, would seem extreme to me.
Throughout, you\re characterising the EU as this toxic organism - "it" wants to do this, "it" wants to do that. "It" doesn't exist. Because we are part of the EU, we can influence it, we can improve its faults. we can influence every aspect of it (as long as our MEPs actually turn up for debates). And we can stand together against the true threats that face us, which includes Vladimir Putin, who is one of the only foreign leaders who'd like us to Leave.
As an American, who obviously doesn't have a say in the issue, I would think it would make more sense to remain in the EU and have a direct hand in shaping policy and some pull with the pursestrings. Being out of the EU, Britain wouldn't get that level of influence, but would probably still have to tow the EU line in most instances simply given the realities of international politics and economics in Europe.
We're on the losing side of most decisions. We can't even get them to stop that moving back and forth between Brussels and Strasburg nonsense. That costs £100,000,000 a year. Bloated and wasteful.
And as more countries join our influence will further wane. Right now we're 1/28 of a decision making process. That is set to further decrease. We're on the verge of leaving yet when Dave went asking for reform they gave him scraps. Scraps that are not even legally binding at present and which are going to vetoed asap.
And as the EU demonstrated with the Lisbon Treaty, they will always make sure that their plans go through uninterrupted. If the EU wants an army it will get one, regardless of what anyone says.
And the regulations that bother me are the ones regarding the CAP and the CFP. The former is a bribe for lazy French farmers that hinders the third world whilst the later has destroyed this counties fishing industry.
We're on the losing side of most decisions. We can't even get them to stop that moving back and forth between Brussels and Strasburg nonsense. That costs £100,000,000 a year. Bloated and wasteful.
And as more countries join our influence will further wane. Right now we're 1/28 of a decision making process. That is set to further decrease. We're on the verge of leaving yet when Dave went asking for reform they gave him scraps. Scraps that are not even legally binding at present and which are going to vetoed asap.
And as the EU demonstrated with the Lisbon Treaty, they will always make sure that their plans go through uninterrupted. If the EU wants an army it will get one, regardless of what anyone says.
And the regulations that bother me are the ones regarding the CAP and the CFP. The former is a bribe for lazy French farmers that hinders the third world whilst the later has destroyed this counties fishing industry.
We would probably do a lot better if we actually elected decent MEPs who actually turn up to the votes and debates they are meant to, such as Farage not going to the debates/votes on fishing rights.
Also, they cannot force the UK to hand over control of the UK military. That is not going to happen. Also, in case nobody has noticed, there is basically no military scenario where our armed forces act on their own any more. I think us having closer ties to the military forces of countries who we are likely to be fighting alongside is a good thing as it provides the opportunity for joint training exercises and other such things which will make us all more effective a force.
If the UK as one of the richest and most populous countries in the eu with huge cultural and historical advantages cannot sway things their way, they should fire all their diplomats as they must be awful.
As a side note, do you guys know which group the tories are in in the EU parliament?
As a side note, do you guys know which group the tories are in in the EU parliament?
Goggle tells me it is apparently the "European Conservatives and Reformists" who are apparently the 3rd largest group in the European parliament
Aye, cameron took them out of the EPP which is the biggest group. In UK terms, he defected from the Tories to UKIP. I wonder why his former EPP allies might not be all ears to him, after he substantially weakened them and nearly handed the comission presidency to the socialists?
You never see this stuff reported on in britain. Also worth checking who else is in that group. He is keeping good company.
Future War Cultist wrote: Because I think the EU is a busted flush that's doomed to failure, and we need to get out while we still can. Also, it's extremely undemocratic, bloated, wasteful and deceitful. Everything it does is behind close doors. It's builders lied to us for years, and it's designed to bypass democratic opinion. It's scary how much it's modeled on the Soviet Union. It wastes millions and demands more in return, hasn't once signed off on its accounts the whole time it's been running, is killing the Mediterranean countries with its idiotic currency, has destroyed our fishing industry, and it's attitude is generally 'you need us to regulate every aspect of your life because you're too stupid to make your own decisions'. Not to mention its desire to build its own army to enact its own foreign policy.
If you swap the bit about the countries on the Med with 'stealing our oil money', I seem to have heard all this before, except it was Scots talking about the UK.
ITV Fact Check wrote:Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
It's absolutely shocking what happens when you actually look for the facts and figures rather than making things up!
Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
It's absolutely shocking what happens when you actually look for the facts and figures rather than making things up!
And that of course, is why the Leave side want you to believe their memes and not consult "the experts."
This is why, with figures like the nonsensical, totally discredited "£350m" painted on the side of a battle bus, my friends are starting to refer to the "new, post-facts world."
ITV Fact Check wrote:Official EU voting records show that the British government has voted ‘No’ to laws passed at EU level on 56 occasions, abstained 70 times, and voted ‘Yes’ 2,466 times since 1999.
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
It's absolutely shocking what happens when you actually look for the facts and figures rather than making things up!
Isn't that a prime example of our politicians engaging in vote-trading? and getting very little back for going with the flow for 95% of the time?
Or is that proof of the point that after a leave vote that there wouldn't be any barriers to trade and diplomacy since we agree with europe 95% of the time?
Is the future change full of 'uncertainty' or is it ripe with 'opportunity'? Opportunity if you're logical about it - nobody has gained anything new by avoiding change
We cannot allow our scheming, conniving, self-intrested politicians an excuse as to why they can't do our wishes. We also can't trust the EU to keep to it's own moral standards as their secret negotiations with a wanted war-criminal to 'stop immigration' through the sudan reveal. Thats going to end real well as according to amnesty international, he's already torturing his opposition and is apparently involved in funding terrorism, never mind the involvement in Genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Angela merkel is taking the angle (ba-dum) that to stop migration you improve living conditions in the area of origin which i agree with, but that is going to involve giving large ammounts of money to a despot - do you think he's going to keep his word or will some of those funds go into his terrorism funding connections?
The whole situation is beyond belief and shows the spectacular naivety of the EU in sacrificing even their moral values to support the new EU super-state fantasy.
The economies of greece, italy and the taxpayers of europe are paying (literally for the taxpayers) for their single-currency fantasy and i don't intend on letting britains economy and culture pay for their 'unlimited immigration/no borders' fantasy either.
Apologies for posting if this has been posted already
Those are some crisp Fists that they keep lingering on.
I look forward to the brexit. The British Pound won't be worth a British Damn, and I can pick up minis cheap due ot the exchange rate. I might even be able to pick up stuff cheap in Europe if the Euro gets dragged down with it.
Since that's one thing that's a guarantee if Brexit takes place a devalued pound. It doesn't matter what the economic reality is, there's been so much fear mongering about Brexit that this one's a self fulfilling prophecy.
notprop wrote: Yeah, we got the ignorant Yank side of things when Obama was over here recently. Didn't need a repeat thank you.
Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Just as an example, on social media, 30,000 people have spread a meme which says
" Pythagoras’ Theory – 24 words
· Lords’ Prayer – 66 words
· Archimedes Principle – 67 words
· Ten Commandments - 179 words
· Gettysburg Address – 267 words
· US Declaration of Independence – 1,321 words
· Magna Carta (including signatures) – 3,856 words
· EU regulations on sale and trade of cabbages – 26,253 words"
Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm from a Catholic family in Belfast. I'm the only one voting to leave in my family. They tell me that the reasons why they're voting to stay is because they're worried that the money the EU invests here will not be given by the British government if we leave the EU, that the boarder between here and the Republic will be closed if we leave, and that they genuinely believe the British government will hammer us without the EU as a retraining bolt. That last one is important. My brother and father are very anti-British government but for different reasons. My brother is a typical socialist Corbyn fanboy student, and my dad is from the 'Troubles' generation. I'm struggling to get through to them, because they won't even let me talk. They both drown me out the second I try to put a point across. I don't think I can persuade them to change their mind.
I agree with them; the Tories have shown no interest in spreading wealth anywhere; all of the regeneration/infrastructure investment that isn't directly linked to London has come from the EU. I'm firmly in, because I've got a pretty good suspicion what'll happen if the tories get to run unchecked, and I haven't heard anything from the out campaign that's significant enough to negate it.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
There is not an equivalence on both sides. One might well have purposely made the future economic scenario look worse; the other has wilfully misrepresented the present . Those are very different beasts.
If I point out that Boris Johnson was sacked for making up facts in the Times, perhaps you'd infer that's attacking the person. But it's necessary information for voters to make a choice and to judge his credibility. Including the lie on the side of his bus.
There is not an equivalence on both sides. One might well have purposely made the future economic scenario look worse; the other has wilfully misrepresented the present . Those are very different beasts.
If I point out that Boris Johnson was sacked for making up facts in the Times, perhaps you'd infer that's attacking the person. But it's necessary information for voters to make a choice and to judge his credibility. Including the lie on the side of his bus.
Inaccurate? Probably. Spin? Most definitely. Fraud? God no, the leave campaign has committed no criminal offence.
As for equivalence, neither side actually have a clue as to what would happen in the future in either case. From Leaves £350m a week cigarette packet calculations (failing to take account of the rebate) to Remains economic predictions in 2030(!), there's been plenty of dishonesty.
I'll leave questions on certain high profile individuals credibility aside - I'm sure we have plenty of opinions on certain figures in this campaign (Osbourne, for me, has been the worst, most despicable character in this whole campaign. But that's just me).
As for equivalence, neither side actually have a clue as to what would happen in the future in either case. From Leaves £350m a week cigarette packet calculations (failing to take account of the rebate) to Remains economic predictions in 2030(!), there's been plenty of dishonesty.
failing to take account of the rebate is a good point. It either shows complete lack of financial understanding (incompetence), or a deliberate omission to make their point (malice). A good equivalent I heard was that it was the same as saying a pint of beer costs £20 in London, if you pay with a £20 note and don't consider the change you get (about £15?). I'd count that as being fraudulent; it's deliberately presenting an obvious lie, in order for direct benefit (votes).
a 14-year prediction is always going to be a bit iffy, since we can't predict more than 5 minutes ahead.
failing to take account of the rebate is a good point. It either shows complete lack of financial understanding (incompetence), or a deliberate omission to make their point (malice). A good equivalent I heard was that it was the same as saying a pint of beer costs £20 in London, if you pay with a £20 note and don't consider the change you get (about £15?). I'd count that as being fraudulent; it's deliberately presenting an obvious lie, in order for direct benefit (votes).
a 14-year prediction is always going to be a bit iffy, since we can't predict more than 5 minutes ahead.
It's actually even worse (but I like the analogy) - the change is more like the direct grants that we get from the EU - the rebate (seeing as that money never actually leaves these shores or gets paid anywhere) is more like the pint being £3.00 instead of £5.00 because it's happy hour.
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
There is not an equivalence on both sides. One might well have purposely made the future economic scenario look worse; the other has wilfully misrepresented the present .
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3?
Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world?
Or when they said it would immediately trigger a uk recession?
Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?
The reason that figure is important is because it counts toward the EU 'economy' which the EU debt model is based on - it's how they get their credit rating as a nation and any extra money under their control increases the available borrowing which merkel is planning to use to 'rescue' the Greek economy.
Otherwise the would be no point in giving a rebate and we would be contributing less initially.
The difference between the two sides is that a few of the things for the remain side have been 'polytricks' whereas everything i've heared cameron or osbourne say in the media has been proven to be lies in this thread and refuted with supplied links.
The manner in which the EU has represented itself in regards to the referendum has been churlish and negative from start to finish - why do they think we will respond to threats? are they used to that?
If i was in the EU trying to convince someone to stay, i would be saying nothing but positive things; but we have seen nothing but threats, warnings, and predictions of doom and gloom forever after.
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3?
Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world?
Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?.
I don't recall seeing any of those claims from a credible source. Maybe I've been too isolated from it? Did anyone seriously mention a collapse or war?
Though I do think it's fair to say that in terms of defence, we're a lot better working *with* our neighbours - we can share information, experience, training and facilities. Though even if we split from the EU, I assume most of that will still apply but with a bit more red tape.
Or when they said it would immediately trigger a uk recession?
Isn't that essentially the only thing both sides agree on? At least, that we'll all be financially worse off, if not in a technical recession?
Stock market has already taken a hit based on the uncertainty of it all.
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3? Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world? Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?.
I don't recall seeing any of those claims from a credible source. Maybe I've been too isolated from it? Did anyone seriously mention a collapse or war?
David Cameron (War). Donald Tusk (Collapse of the EU and Western civilization). Pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign (An independent Britain can't survive).
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
What about when they stated it would lead to world war 3?
Or when they said it would lead to the collapse of the western world?
Or when they say a lone nation can't look after itself?.
I don't recall seeing any of those claims from a credible source.
War came from David Cameron
Collapse of western world from Donald Tusk
Yep - I agree with you, they haven't come from a credible source.
Pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign (An independent Britain can't survive).
You know how you don't like it when the Remain side uses hyperbole? Yeah, about that...
Ok then. I challenge you to cite a prominent figure (i.e. a politician, economist etc) in the Remain campaign who does think that Britain can succeed as an independent nation. When you do that, I will admit and withdraw said hyperbole.
I'm not the one making a claim. The onus is on you to prove that "pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign" believes that "an independent Britain can't survive". Do note that pessimistic predictions about the future is not the same as arguing that the UK cannot survive without the EU.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Unfortunately, this has been the tenor of the debate generally. Insult those who express an opinion - and those people include most respected economists, the LSE, most business leaders. Then when someone points out the lack of detail in your own plan, and the outrageously distorted figures, you shout, "well, it's all about sovereignty." I've never seen such a debased debate.
Both sides have indulged in a bit of attacking the person instead of debating and refuting their opposites position. Unfortunately, that does lead to a debased debate and a ton of hyperbole from both sides.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: Hopefully, the British public will bit by bit realise that a small group of people are hoping to execute a major fraud on them. Really, the perpetrators who do this knowingly, and there are many of them, should be imprisoned for the offence.
What fraud?
A fraud with things like "£350m a week" as the cost of the EU.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
Just had some more literature through the post from leave. It has thrown up another interesting question.
Paraphrasing its asks what you would do if the vote was to enter the EU rather than leave.
On that hypothesis remarks from the remain campaign look even worse than they do now.
if we do not enter there will be war.
If we do not enter there will be financial collapse
If we do not enter there will be an increased risk from terrorism.
If we do not enter will have to beg the EU for trade deals.
We would also have to pay into the EU to prop up countries who are in debt.
We would also be entering at a time when the leaders of the EU have admitted that their planning and timing have been wrong and that the EU needs serious reform.
Doesn't sound like an organisation I would like to join.
Pretty much everybody in the Remain campaign (An independent Britain can't survive).
You know how you don't like it when the Remain side uses hyperbole? Yeah, about that...
Absolutely - hyperbole has no place in this discussion.
I don't need to use hyperbole because the facts are pretty damning as they are.
Whether the average voter is bothered enough to read through that crap is what this referendum is hinging on - i went to the effort of reading the five presidents report, i had a look into the secret meetings they hold, i read a whole load of juncker/tusks speeches to the EU and i waded through the mass of reports on the EU plan for dealing with the Greek and Italian economies; and it was alarming how dismissive these people are of alternative opinions.
Here is a snippet from a speech made by donald tusk at the 40th meeting of the EPP or the 'european peoples party'...
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.
in the same speech he also said this...
A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world.
Like, holy feth dude! his intention is to start imposing values on the entire world.
How is russia going to respond to that?!? or china for that matter?!?
A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world.
Like, holy feth dude! his intention is to start imposing values on the entire world.
How is russia going to respond to that?!? or china for that matter?!?
Peace in our time?
Did you actually read this speech? He is criticising those who hold these "utopian" ideas, not stating them as his intention!
More integration is not the answer to the current crises faced by Europe, EU Council president Donald Tusk has warned.
He said on Monday European politicians were “confronting reality with all kinds of utopian ideas”.
“A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of a Euro-Asian unity," he told an event marking the 40th anniversary of the conservative European People's Party (EPP) in Luxembourg.
The former Polish prime minister warned that those advocating for stronger and quicker European integration fail to understand the voice of the people.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
When I go to the pub and it's Happy Hour, the reduced price (£5 -> £3 to copy the example above) is what I pay - the fact that next week they might change it DOES NOT STOP THE FACT THAT THE REDUCED PRICE OF £3 IS WHAT I AM PAYING THIS WEEK, NOT £5.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
When I go to the pub and it's Happy Hour, the reduced price (£5 -> £3 to copy the example above) is what I pay - the fact that next week they might change it DOES NOT STOP THE FACT THAT THE REDUCED PRICE OF £3 IS WHAT I AM PAYING THIS WEEK, NOT £5.
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
Did you actually read this speech? He is criticising those who hold these "utopian" ideas, not stating them as his intention!
More integration is not the answer to the current crises faced by Europe, EU Council president Donald Tusk has warned.
He said on Monday European politicians were “confronting reality with all kinds of utopian ideas”.
“A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world, a utopia of a Euro-Asian unity," he told an event marking the 40th anniversary of the conservative European People's Party (EPP) in Luxembourg.
The former Polish prime minister warned that those advocating for stronger and quicker European integration fail to understand the voice of the people.
Yes i did, i can tell you didn't though because thats not the speech, this is...
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now.
Why bother taking a journalists biased article about the speech when you can just read the speech directly from the EU website?
So not only has this meglalomaniac got ideas on bossing the world around at the expense of our security, he regards reality as needing to be 'confronted' with his 'united states of europeland' fantasy.
Because thats exactly what it is - a fantasy that we will have to pay for. literally.
The claim (if you actually take the time to read it) is that we hand £350m a week gross to the EU. Government figures show that on average we hand £350m a week gross to the EU - can you explain to me where the fraud is in that?
If they claimed that we spend £350m a week net then yes it is fraud, but that isn't what they have claimed.
The Bolded bit is the lie. We do not hand £350M a week to the EU - the rebate (badly named) is never handed over, it is taken off before any money is sent to the EU. It is a bit over 25% of the total quoted, so the £350M handed over is actually about £260M. That's a £90M lie.
The rebate - according to George Osborne is not guaranteed.
This came from George Osborne when we were asked to fork over an extra £1.4bn (I think this was 2014) because our economy was doing better than the rest of the EU.
His claim was that it wasn't £1.4bn because he'd agreed that we could pay £800mn if we didn't get a rebate and that this was a 'good deal' because the rebate was not guaranteed.
If it isn't guaranteed then it's not exactly reasonable to claim that it's not a fee we pay.
When I go to the pub and it's Happy Hour, the reduced price (£5 -> £3 to copy the example above) is what I pay - the fact that next week they might change it DOES NOT STOP THE FACT THAT THE REDUCED PRICE OF £3 IS WHAT I AM PAYING THIS WEEK, NOT £5.
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
We disagree on the meaning of fraudulent then - if the authors also knew that it would mislead most readers (and let's be honest, they did), then they are making a fraudulent claim.
In this case, Happy Hour has been running for 31 years (started in 1985) I think that's long enough for it to be relied on as a pretty regular thing no? It's not like it's a one off reduction to keep the UK sweet in referendum year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias.
I think this is the key line, and we differ on our interpretation - you think Trusk is saying that this is a good thing, and I think he is arguing the point that it is a bad thing. I think at this point we shrug at each other and each assumes the other has poor reading comprehension.
So not only has this meglalomaniac got ideas on bossing the world around at the expense of our security, he regards reality as needing to be 'confronted' with his 'united states of europeland' fantasy.
Because thats exactly what it is - a fantasy that we will have to pay for. literally.
He's saying that he's part of the people that are responsible for having tried to ignore reality in order to create a utopia, not that this should be the case.
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate.
You can't just snip out the second part of the argument being made. When looked at together, Tusk is arguing that they've tried to hard to create a utopia and that this has led to a disconnect with reality. It's essentially the main issue the Leave campaign has with Europe, but you've somehow managed to misread it as though Tusk wants to ignore reality and keep going. I have no idea how you managed to do that, but it does you no credit.
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
THis is such an interesting area.
Firstly, "we might have to pay at some point in the future" is not the same as "we pay."
We do not pay that £350m Some dodgy types claim that we "get the money back later" but that's not true. We don't pay the larger amount and get a cashback. We pay the lesser amount. (For instance, as the Telegraph puts it, "the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all."
Secondly, some folk like to claim that because we might have to pay this amount in the future, than we're really paying it now (I know, incredible, but some people are dodgy enough to claim that.).
We have a veto on a change on the rebate.
So, the truth about that £90m or so, is we don't pay it, and we will only lose this discount if we volunteer to pay more.
We don't need analogies about beer. We don't pay £350m.
It's not open to interpretation! heres the speech!
Spoiler:
Dear President Joseph Daul, dear friends,
People celebrate anniversaries in order to remember. What should we, Christian Democrats, remember when we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of our political community? First and foremost, we should remember why we are together, and what the real reason behind creating a one-party family was. Today we often refer to ourselves as a party of results, not a party of ideology but this is too little to survive in good shape for the next forty years. The need for a deeper reflection of a historical, ideological and political nature is obvious. Proud as we are of our pragmatism, we must also remember that pragmatism itself does not constitute the foundations of our community.
Today, I want to tell you about the three, to my mind, most important challenges currently facing the European People's Party. First, we must redefine our fundamental catalogue of values, the minimum of Christian democracy, so to speak. And by this I do not mean the need for some ideological inventions, but rather a conscious and very seriously taken return to our roots.
It has been forty years exactly since I started my studies at the University of Gdańsk. It was precisely at the same time when the communists once again brutally crushed workers' protests and strikes in several Polish cities. In reaction to those events, a small group of Warsaw intellectuals and dissidents established the so-called KOR, the Workers' Defense Committee, an initiative to help the imprisoned, the injured and those thrown out of work. Illegal students' committees were also being set up at some universities. We didn't know at the time that four years later the great 10-million-strong Solidarity movement would come to life.
When I set up such an underground student committee at my University in 1977, I was not thinking about politics as an art of achieving results. It was difficult to call that activity pragmatic, as it was strictly connected with taking a risk. On the other hand, however, it was an exciting experience, if not mystical. And that's because in those days ethics came before politics, or, to put it differently, political engagement was a result of exclusively ethical motives. Paradoxically, this is precisely what in the longer-term perspective became a source of strength and effectiveness.
It was also then that we were discovering forbidden words and ideas: liberty, democracy, freedom of religion and expression, the rule of law, free market and private property. It is not a feeling of nostalgia that makes me go back to the old times, but a deep conviction that those values are still relevant in the Christian democratic minimum. Do they sound old-fashioned and banal? They do. But this is where their strength lies. We do not need further constructivist and progressive ideologies. Socialists are much better at this. Let us again believe in those ideas which are rooted in our tradition of freedom, in the Decalogue, in our hearts and experiences. What we lack today is a new energy and genuine determination to defend them.
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate.
The third challenge concerns ourselves. Let me be absolutely blunt when I tell you what I think about the internal situation in the EPP, in our political party. Before I start, however, I want to make an important declaration: I am terribly proud to be in the same party with such people as Joseph Daul and Angela Merkel, as Viktor Orban and Manfred Weber, as Jean-Claude Juncker and Boyko Borissov. That they are different from each other is clear. Just look at Boyko and Jean-Claude. But differences should not mean conflicts. There is space in the EPP for different sensitivities and different tactics as long as we share the same values and a common strategy. When you look at it objectively, there is no conflict between the idea of strict respect for the rules, e.g. Schengen, and solidarity with the refugees. In addition to that, Europe needs a wise synthesis of those two values. If we succeed in building it, people will believe that we are able to cope with this or another crisis. Speaking openly, we will either understand that the views of Angela and Viktor are compatible with each other and only together can they provide a full answer, or people will search for other radical and brutal recipes for how to solve the crisis. We have to look for what we share, and not underline our differences. That is why let us refrain from exaggerated rhetoric, because exaggeration, in whichever direction, is a heavy sin in politics.
If we want a united Europe, a Europe of Solidarity, we must start with ourselves. One of the great moral authorities, John Paul the Second said that Solidarity is never one against the other. Solidarity is always one with the other, together. When one is a Christian Democrat, it is sometimes worth listening to the Pope.
At no point does he say that the message needs to change. thats what he was working for and its what he remains working for.
Today, I want to tell you about the three, to my mind, most important challenges currently facing the European People's Party.
The closest he gets to what you're claiming is this...
The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it.
...Where he says that a vision of a federal state is not the answer to the risk of the EU breaking upnot that he's against the idea of a 'united states of europeland'.
He also said this in the speech...
That is why let us refrain from exaggerated rhetoric, because exaggeration, in whichever direction, is a heavy sin in politics.
And the fact that you have only had to pay £3 in the happy hour does not change the fact that the normal fee is £5. Our normal fee is £350mn gross per week, the fact that we are currently in 'happy hour' and pay less doesn't change that fact.
I don't dispute that the claim will be misleading to most - many people don't even understand the difference between Gross and Net nevermind when you start reading in rebates and such - but the claim was that it was fraudulent, which it simply isn't.
THis is such an interesting area.
Firstly, "we might have to pay at some point in the future" is not the same as "we pay."
We do not pay that £350m Some dodgy types claim that we "get the money back later" but that's not true. We don't pay the larger amount and get a cashback. We pay the lesser amount. (For instance, as the Telegraph puts it, "the rebate is effectively deducted at source, and so not actually sent to the EU at all."
Secondly, some folk like to claim that because we might have to pay this amount in the future, than we're really paying it now (I know, incredible, but some people are dodgy enough to claim that.).
We have a veto on a change on the rebate.
So, the truth about that £90m or so, is we don't pay it, and we will only lose this discount if we volunteer to pay more.
We don't need analogies about beer. We don't pay £350m.
But it is the fee - regardless of weather we get the rebate before or after the Gross fee for our being in the EU is £350mn - this is not a fraudulent claim, indeed this is supported by government figures.
Maybe it isn't what we pay, but it is the Gross cost of our being in the EU.
There is an important difference between misleading and fraudulent. A Fraudulent claim could lead to the referendum being challenged in the event of a Brexit, whilst a misleading one cannot as people should have done their own investigation. Thus a Fraudulent claim would be the cost of EU membership is £500mn per week (which it isn’t) whilst a misleading claim is that it is £350mn per week (which it technically is but doesn’t take account of the rebate)
Even as an outer I agree that the claim is misleading, but it isn’t fraudulent as the Gross cost of being in the EU is £350mn per week
So...fraudulent = making misleading but technically true claims that don't tell the whole truth? By that logic, the Remain side are also making "fraudulent" claims. After all, David Cameron is not above using spin and cherry picking facts that favour his arguments whilst ignoring others.
I've been mocked for using hyperbole, but isn't this hyperbole too?
At best, the £350m figure is misleading, because its not the whole truth. But it is not fraudulent.
But it is the fee - regardless of weather we get the rebate before or after the Gross fee for our being in the EU is £350mn - this is not a fraudulent claim, indeed this is supported by government figures.
Maybe it isn't what we pay, but it is the Gross cost of our being in the EU.
That's just nonsense - sorry but as an accountant, if I tried to argue that what we didn't pay was the cost, I'd be fired.
Stranger83 wrote: There is an important difference between misleading and fraudulent. A Fraudulent claim could lead to the referendum being challenged in the event of a Brexit, whilst a misleading one cannot as people should have done their own investigation. Thus a Fraudulent claim would be the cost of EU membership is £500mn per week (which it isn’t) whilst a misleading claim is that it is £350mn per week (which it technically is but doesn’t take account of the rebate)
Even as an outer I agree that the claim is misleading, but it isn’t fraudulent as the Gross cost of being in the EU is £350mn per week
Can you point to anything that says that making a fraudulent claim could invalidate the referendum? I'm not aware of any facility to challenge this in any election (I am aware of the laws around false statements about election candidates, but not that those laws apply to any 'non-candidate' facts).
Yes, yes it is. The "confronting reality with utopias" can be read two ways, he's either arguing, as you claim, that the EU needs to remain true to its goals and push on, or he's arguing that the "we" in the speech are the ones responsible for having pushed these ideals of utopia despite reality, and that they might have to stop and take notice of context in order to do better. Sure, he's not arguing for the abandoning of the goal of European unity, you're right on that point, but he is (at least I'd argue he is) calling for a pause to review and reflect over the way things have been done so far.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So...fraudulent = making misleading but technically true claims that don't tell the whole truth? By that logic, the Remain side are also making "fraudulent" claims. After all, David Cameron is not above using spin and cherry picking facts that favour his arguments whilst ignoring others.
I've been mocked for using hyperbole, but isn't this hyperbole too?
At best, the £350m figure is misleading, because its not the whole truth. But it is not fraudulent.
"The EU now costs the UK over £350 million each week - nearly £20 billion a year."
This is a fraudulent claim. In fact, it's even more misleading than saying "we pay" because the one fig-leaf behind "we pay" for the desperate is that somewhere in the calculations there's an invoice with the full amount. But what something costs us is the expenditure from our bank account.
There's no small print or anything about rebates either - that page is clearly stating that "cost" is £350million a week.
There's absolutely no way you spin that so that it's even technically true. We don't send that much at all. The cost is always £260million, or 25% lower than claimed. And that's only accounting for the membership fee, it's not factoring in any funding flowing the other way.
It's completely disingenuous to claim that it's not fraud. The ASA wouldn't allow it if it were an advert.
Last week I was introduced to a FOAF who was going to vote leave for no other reason than he thought that side would win and " I always like to have voted for the winning side", which I'd thought was a hitherto new low.
But this...
feth me we are doomed.
Future of the country might depend on Daniel Sturridge's metatarsal
If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?
The simple fact is that nobody (as far as I can see) other than those here on this website has claimed that this is fraud, and the reason for that is because it isn’t, our fee is £350mn per week plain and simple. The fact that we don’t actually pay that fee because the EU agrees to give us a rebate doesn’t stop the fact that the fee is £350mn.
Again, it is fully misleading – but it isn’t fraud.
I believe (though I don’t have it to hand so could be wrong) that the Leave claim has always been that our membership fee is £350mn and not that we hand over £350mn. Thus the claim is not wrong, just misleading.
Incidentally, and I’m not an election lawyer so I’ll stand to be corrected, but it has always been my understanding that once you are deemed the official campaign then you are held to the same requirements as any other party with regards to making fraudulent claims in a referendum/election, which (as I understand it) means that there would be legal recourse in the event of fraudulent claims being made.
So not only has this meglalomaniac got ideas on bossing the world around at the expense of our security, he regards reality as needing to be 'confronted' with his 'united states of europeland' fantasy.
Because thats exactly what it is - a fantasy that we will have to pay for. literally.
He's saying that he's part of the people that are responsible for having tried to ignore reality in order to create a utopia, not that this should be the case.
Second, persistent in our commitment to fundamental principles, we must be guided in our political projects by common sense and a good sense of timing. It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia of Europe imposing its own values on the external world. A utopia of a Euro-Asian unity.
Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm. Disillusioned with the great visions of the future, they demand that we cope with the present reality better than we have been doing until now. Today, Euro-scepticism, or even Euro-pessimism have become an alternative to those illusions. And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe. The spectre of a break-up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation doesn't seem to me like the best answer to it. We need to understand the necessity of the historical moment. As the President of the European Council I want to start an honest and open debate on the subject. The sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome provides a good background for such a debate.
You can't just snip out the second part of the argument being made. When looked at together, Tusk is arguing that they've tried to hard to create a utopia and that this has led to a disconnect with reality. It's essentially the main issue the Leave campaign has with Europe, but you've somehow managed to misread it as though Tusk wants to ignore reality and keep going. I have no idea how you managed to do that, but it does you no credit.
lets have some clarity on what his vision for the EU is supposed to be then we can decided if we want in or not.
I believe (though I don’t have it to hand so could be wrong) that the Leave claim has always been that our membership fee is £350mn and not that we hand over £350mn. Thus the claim is not wrong, just misleading.
Go and look at the page and see what leave actually say.
Stranger83 wrote: If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?
Also, it's a broken analogy. EU doesn't owe us anything.
A better analog is if I buy something from you for £15, but there's a £5 discount, so I hand you a £10. Can you honestly say that it cost £15?
It's not misleading, it's an outright lie. If they'd said "Our membership fee is £350m/week" then sure, that's technically correct but misleading, but the quote is that the cost is £350m/week, which is just isn't.
I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.
This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.
Stranger83 wrote: If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?
Another tortuous analogy when the reality is clear.
I think this all started because of the term "rebate" so that some people got in their heads that the money was given back to us later (this is what Gove has tried saying). But it's not given back to us later, as the Telegraph quote earlier puts it, we never pay it in the first place. The £350m figure is one part in a calculation - but it's not what we pay, nor is it the cost, whatever definition (or tortured analogy) you choose.
Remember, what Leave says, under the heading "Fact", on its website: "The EU now costs the UK over £350 million each week - nearly £20 billion a year."
Try defending this one, instead: "Nissan, which says it would prefer Britain to remain in the EU, said it would be issuing legal proceedings on Monday in Britain's High Court to stop 'Vote Leave' from using its name and logo and to "prevent them making any further false statements and misrepresentations concerning Nissan."
Nissan is just one of several companies whose logos have been used in Leave leaflets, when in fact they're unequivocal about needing to stay in the EU, otherwise jobs will be lost.
Stranger83 wrote: If I owe you £5 and you buy something for me for £15 and I agree to pay you £10 and let you off the £5 is the cost of the item only £10?
The simple fact is that nobody (as far as I can see) other than those here on this website has claimed that this is fraud, and the reason for that is because it isn’t, our fee is £350mn per week plain and simple. The fact that we don’t actually pay that fee because the EU agrees to give us a rebate doesn’t stop the fact that the fee is £350mn.
Again, it is fully misleading – but it isn’t fraud.
I believe (though I don’t have it to hand so could be wrong) that the Leave claim has always been that our membership fee is £350mn and not that we hand over £350mn. Thus the claim is not wrong, just misleading.
Incidentally, and I’m not an election lawyer so I’ll stand to be corrected, but it has always been my understanding that once you are deemed the official campaign then you are held to the same requirements as any other party with regards to making fraudulent claims in a referendum/election, which (as I understand it) means that there would be legal recourse in the event of fraudulent claims being made.
But the EU doesn't 'owe' us the rebate already, it is accepting a discounted membership fee.
The £350 million we give to the EU every week could pay for...
Re: the fraudulent claims - I don't know of any laws against this in an electoral context, barring the laws about making false claims about a candidate (I was a lawyer before an accountant, but not an electoral one).
All sides are involved in misleading information – it’s the nature of politics to show the positive impact of your side and not the negative.
For example In claim that 3million jobs are dependent on the EU, when in fact AT BEST these jobs are dependent on trade with the EU and it assumes that ALL trade would end if we were to leave.
Misleading facts are part and parcel of an election/referendum and it’s the voters job to work out the truth for the information we are given – however there is an important line between misleading and fraudulent and I don’t think either side has made a fraudulent claim yet (the closest being from the IN side with the idea that a vote for out would lead to world war 3). I certainly don’t see the claim that our fee for the EU is £350mn is fraudulent, these figures come from the government after all and are part of the EU accounts. Again I’ve not heard anyone claim it is fraudulent other than the people on this page.
In tell us often we should listen to the experts, I suggest on this you follow the advice and call it misleading (which is how the experts refer to it).
Future War Cultist wrote: I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.
This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.
As a Swede, I'd put it the other way: we're fethed if the UK leaves. The UK is our biggest ally in the EU; without the UK, we'd lose a lot of influence.
Stranger83 wrote: I don’t think either side has made a fraudulent claim yet (the closest being from the IN side with the idea that a vote for out would lead to world war 3).
It seems you're confused between facts and predictions.
The amount "we pay the EU" is a fact.
The possibility that our leaving the EU will destabilise the continent is a prediction.
Deliberately misrepresenting a fact is a lie.
Giving a deliberately pessimistic prediction is not a lie. It is a deliberately pessimistic prediction - rather like saying Turkey "will join" the EU" and that "12m Turks" will come here, many of them armed with knives and guns.
The EU accounts show that our contributions are £18bn per year and that we get a rebate of £8bn per year (give or take a little)
£18bn per year equates to (roughly) £350mn per week. Therefore if the claim that our payment to the EU is £350mn per week is fraudulent then the EU accounts are fraudulent. I don’t think that they are, you may disagree but if you do then do you really want to be part of an organisation that files fraudulent accounts?
Future War Cultist wrote: I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.
This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.
As a Swede, I'd put it the other way: we're fethed if the UK leaves. The UK is our biggest ally in the EU; without the UK, we'd lose a lot of influence.
And Sweden would lose out on money made from all those Abba records the UK buys
Stranger83 wrote: I don’t think either side has made a fraudulent claim yet (the closest being from the IN side with the idea that a vote for out would lead to world war 3).
It seems you're confused between facts and predictions.
The amount "we pay the EU" is a fact.
The possibility that our leaving the EU will destabilise the continent is a prediction.
Deliberately misrepresenting a fact is a lie.
Giving a deliberately pessimistic prediction is not a lie. It is a deliberately pessimistic prediction - rather like saying Turkey "will join" the EU" and that "12m Turks" will come here, many of them armed with knives and guns.
.
If you truly are an account (I believe it was you who said this) you’ll know that there are many ways to calculate values in your accounts. Accountant is more an art form than a science. There is plenty of basis for the claim of £350mn per week, whilst it might not fit into the basis that you will use the claim that it is fraudulent is simply untrue as it is based on the account from the EU itself. This is why none of the major financial institutions that have spoken out about the claim have used the word fraudulent – because it simply isn’t.
It’s clear we are not going to agree – you believe that your interpretation is correct and you are free to do so. On this I will follow the interpretation of the majority of financial institution who simply claim it is misleading.
Anyway, I nearly forgot the original point I was going to make. There was a man on BBC news today, he was from the art world, and because of the EU's VAT charge on importing art from non-EU countries, London and the UK are losing out to New York as a centre for cultural excellence.
It's not just dealers buying and selling, but museums and art galleries the length of Britain who suffer from this VAT charge. As a connoisseur of culture, this is another reason to vote out, in my book.
obsidianaura wrote: I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?
Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?
Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.
How much of a hit are you willing to take though?
I don't want to lose my house, and not having a job worries me.
Obviously, I don't want to see a fellow dakka member lose their house, but I don't think it would ever come to that. A shock to the housing system, say lower prices, could be good for the next generation trying to get on the ladder.
As for your job, we're the 5th largest economy in the world. We'd be fine. That's no consolation to anybody who loses their job, but even in the EU people lose their jobs all the time to recessions etc etc
The world was fine long before the EU existed. It'll still be here long after it's gone.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: because of the EU's VAT charge on importing art from non-EU countries, London and the UK are losing out to New York as a centre for cultural excellence.
.
Anyone buying from outside the EU can reclaim VAT. They are probably talking about Artist Resale Rights, a tax of 0.25 per cent on large sums, which goes to the artist or descendant.
The world was fine long before the EU existed. It'll still be here long after it's gone.
True only if "engaged in war that killed millions" or "with half the population controlled by a totalitarian state with secret police and execution or exile of dissidents" is fine.
Future War Cultist wrote: I've heard some rumours that Sweden and Denmark are secretly praying for Brexit so that they can have their own referendums with confidence (Dexit and Swexit). Then the plan would be to get together with Britain, Norway, Iceland and maybe Finland (if they can be persuaded to leave too) to form a trading block of our own that's only about trade and is not a state building exercise.
This would be fantastic. And if it's true it's another reason for me to vote to leave. I understand Sweden and Denmarks hesitation. Making that first jump can be scary. That's why I'd like Britain to show a bit of leadership.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: because of the EU's VAT charge on importing art from non-EU countries, London and the UK are losing out to New York as a centre for cultural excellence.
.
Anyone buying from outside the EU can reclaim VAT. They are probably talking about Artist Resale Rights, a tax of 0.25 per cent on large sums, which goes to the artist or descendant.
To say that the Third Reich will return without the EU is nonsense. Both sides are guilty of spouting nonsense, and from reading your earlier posts, which were quite balanced, I'm very surprised that you have written this.
Anyway, here's the link to that VAT on imported art story I was talking about, if anybody is interested.
That's similar to a link I posted pages ago that shows how the EU is destroying our artwork auctioneering business, among others. Petty over regulation is making us lose out to New York.
obsidianaura wrote: I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?
Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?
Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.
I see the EU as being more democratic than leaving the tories to run things (because lets face it, that's what's going to happen). So a leave vote (to me, at least) is going to result in a drop in both democracy and economy.
The only possible good I can see is if it triggers another indyref or we form a north sea trading coalition, neither of which can be banked on.
obsidianaura wrote: I'm curious. What do exit voters hope to change in their lives by leaving the EU?
Is it worth risking making things worse in the hopes that it gets better?
Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but even if a BREXIT left me worse off financially, I'd still vote to leave. Democracy trumps economy for me.
I see the EU as being more democratic than leaving the tories to run things (because lets face it, that's what's going to happen). So a leave vote (to me, at least) is going to result in a drop in both democracy and economy.
The only possible good I can see is if it triggers another indyref or we form a north sea trading coalition, neither of which can be banked on.
I'm voting to stay in but even I'd have to disagree here. If the unelected EU is able to overrule and elected government then its not democracy.
I don't want the Tory's to remove rights and things but if we vote for them in, then that's what we should get.
Democracy can do good and bad things, but it's still democracy.
To say that the Third Reich will return without the EU is nonsense.
Oh, sorry, I misconstrued you, I thought you said Europe was "fine" before the EU. Must have mis-read the letters f i n & e.
So we can take it that you thought having Poland, Ukraine etc under occupation by a totalitarian state - which still resents their involvement with Europe - is fine? Have you ever hear of the Stasi?
That's why Poland in particular is worried about the "security problem" of Brexit. It was the EU pushed for heavier sanctions once Putin invaded the Crimea, and the UK was at the forefront of the EU response - as it well should be, rather than retreating to our Island and waving the Cross of St George.
To say that the Third Reich will return without the EU is nonsense.
Oh, sorry, I misconstrued you, I thought you said Europe was "fine" before the EU. Must have mis-read the letters f i n & e.
So we can take it that you thought having Poland, Ukraine etc under occupation by a totalitarian state - which still resents their involvement with Europe - is fine? Have you ever hear of the Stasi?
That's why Poland in particular is worried about the "security problem" of Brexit. It was the EU pushed for heavier sanctions once Putin invaded the Crimea, and the UK was at the forefront of the EU response - as it well should be, rather than retreating to our Island and waving the Cross of St George.
Nobody should let their vote, be it in or out, be decided on the basis of what might happen in another country after the referendum.
My number 1 concern is the future of this island.
And to add to my earlier point, I was merely trying to say that warfare, strife, peace prosperity etc etc have always been a part of humanity, and sadly, will probably always be with us. The presense or the absence of the EU won't change that aspect of humanity IMO.
We have peace and prosperity in Europe, and the Romans, centuries before, had it during the age of the 4 good emperors. The EU doesn't have the monopoly on this.
obsidianaura wrote: Hey Do_I_Not_Like_That, if the UK leaves the EU, Nicola Sturgeon said she'd try and hold another Scottish independence vote.
Is that something you'd want again?
Absolutely, but I think it would be too early for another Scottish referendum. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Farage, would probably make the case for Scottish independence.
obsidianaura wrote: Hey Do_I_Not_Like_That, if the UK leaves the EU, Nicola Sturgeon said she'd try and hold another Scottish independence vote.
Is that something you'd want again?
Absolutely, but I think it would be too early for another Scottish referendum. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and Chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Farage, would probably make the case for Scottish independence.
Scotland won't leave. Not with oil the price it's currently at.
But guys, a North Sea Economic Area, made up of the UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and in a dream scenario Greenland, Holland and Ireland as well...a commercial arrangement that respects the sovereignty of all its member states.
Nobody should let their vote, be it in or out, be decided on the basis of what might happen in another country after the referendum.
My number 1 concern is the future of this island.
What about indirect impacts on our island? If we allow Eastern Europe to destabilize (because Putin clearly wants it back), what's the fall-out going to be? How long before we have all of those refugees to house as well as the current flood? What if we get dragged into it?
What might happen in other countries will affect the future of this island.
obsidianaura wrote: Hey Do_I_Not_Like_That, if the UK leaves the EU, Nicola Sturgeon said she'd try and hold another Scottish independence vote.
Is that something you'd want again?
Definitely. If it gets us back into Europe and gets the tories to stop screwing us over, then I'd be all for it. The only concern then would be that Labour would never get a majority again without Scotland, so we'd be stuck with a shafted country as a neighbour. Our economy would boom if we were still in Europe too, as many companies would likely move north of the border.
Apart from the 790 hereditory Lords, and all of the unelected beurocrats that run stuff.
Good point, actually. I repressed my memory of them.
If we do leave the EU the House of Lords needs to go next. Especially if the Torys are planning on spamming it with concervatives to get their own way. It's definitely not democratic.
obsidianaura wrote: ...
I don't know about proportions on the EU. They have some unelected people. We have no unelected people. It's my only real problem with the EU
We can't make the EU get more democratic by leaving. If we want to make it more demoractic we should stay in and form a bloc with Germany, Denmark and show some leadership.
obsidianaura wrote: ... I don't know about proportions on the EU. They have some unelected people. We have no unelected people. It's my only real problem with the EU
We can't make the EU get more democratic by leaving. If we want to make it more demoractic we should stay in and form a bloc with Germany, Denmark and show some leadership.
Agreed. Hopefully the remain side will win and then our MEPs go in and start kicking the EU's behinds into shape . I think we should be pushing for an EU health service and a combined military service. That'd save some money by distributing the cost more fairly. It'd be a nightmare to figure out who was in charge of that stuff though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Not that the House of Lords can do anything. The House of Commons has the power to bypass the Lords at whim.
We also have a queen, we are a sucker for tradition.
They stopped the plan to cut disabled peoples benefits though. I thought if they could have bypassed the house of lords they would have.
They are in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, they just don't use them that often. I think the last time they used one was to put the Hunting ban through.
It's kind of like a Parliamentary Suckerpunch, using it is kind of taboo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I found a list of the times it has been used.
The original form of the 1911 Act was used three times.[4] These were:
Government of Ireland Act 1914, which would have established a Home Rule government in Ireland; its implementation was blocked due to the First World War.
Welsh Church Act 1914, under which the Welsh part of the Church of England was disestablished in 1920, becoming the Church in Wales.
Parliament Act 1949, which amended the Parliament Act 1911 (discussed above).
The amended form of the 1911 Act has been used four times.[4] These were:
War Crimes Act 1991, which extended jurisdiction of UK courts to acts committed on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War (the only time- to date- that the Parliament Acts have been used by a Conservative government).
European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which changed the system of elections to the European Parliament from first past the post to a form of proportional representation.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which equalised the age of consent for male homosexual sexual activities with that for heterosexual and female homosexual sexual activities at 16.
Hunting Act 2004, which prohibited hare coursing and (subject to some exceptions) all hunting of wild mammals (particularly foxes) with dogs after early 2005.
welshhoppo wrote: They are in the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, they just don't use them that often. I think the last time they used one was to put the Hunting ban through.
It's kind of like a Parliamentary Suckerpunch, using it is kind of taboo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I found a list of the times it has been used.
The original form of the 1911 Act was used three times.[4] These were:
Government of Ireland Act 1914, which would have established a Home Rule government in Ireland; its implementation was blocked due to the First World War. Welsh Church Act 1914, under which the Welsh part of the Church of England was disestablished in 1920, becoming the Church in Wales. Parliament Act 1949, which amended the Parliament Act 1911 (discussed above). The amended form of the 1911 Act has been used four times.[4] These were:
War Crimes Act 1991, which extended jurisdiction of UK courts to acts committed on behalf of Nazi Germany during the Second World War (the only time- to date- that the Parliament Acts have been used by a Conservative government). European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which changed the system of elections to the European Parliament from first past the post to a form of proportional representation. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, which equalised the age of consent for male homosexual sexual activities with that for heterosexual and female homosexual sexual activities at 16. Hunting Act 2004, which prohibited hare coursing and (subject to some exceptions) all hunting of wild mammals (particularly foxes) with dogs after early 2005.
Thanks this is interesting and cool.
Although wasn't the filibuster in the US supposed to not be used, but now happens loads?
I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
And how long would it be before the UK started dictating to the other members what to do? At least there's not one power in the EU that has the same clout as everyone else put together.
Future War Cultist wrote: I want to build this North Sea Economic Area group myself. The UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Even better with Greenland, Holland and Ireland too.
And how long would it be before the UK started dictating to the other members what to do? At least there's not one power in the EU that has the same clout as everyone else put together.
It would be an economic trade zone, not a political union.
Although wasn't the filibuster in the US supposed to not be used, but now happens loads?
thanks, OP.
It's worth pointing out that there's a convention that the Lords doesn't reject commitments made in a Manifesto. That would be too undemocratic!
Americans might not know, but often with a bill, its final shape is agreed... but the bill that goes thru the elected house is much blander. then they add all the meat in the Lords, to make it how they wanted it in the first place. I've seen this happen once up close... it was fascinating how there was this dual agenda throughout, one spoken, one unspoken, but everyone in the system know how it would turn out .
I don't necessarily have anything against the Lords, overall it works at least as well as the Senate, but of course I do enjoy using it when Quitters talk about "unelected officials."
You get to keep The City with all the money and surplus it creates for London and the 
