Da Boss wrote: The Calais threat comes from some centre right French politicians. It's not Hollande threatening this.
And all they are suggesting is to move UK border controls to the UK, rather than doing the border checks in France as they are now.
But whatever, explaining this stuff to you guys is like pissing into the wind - you've already made up your minds.
It would suit France a lot to move border controls back to the UK. Once people arrive illegally on British soil from Calais the French will raise hell about taking them back and make a fight of it, even if they did come through France they'll somehow claim we have to send them all the way back to their home nation, which migrants aren't forthcoming about specifically to prevent this.
International Blackmail?!?
This could get quite weird - why would you try to convince someone to do something by threatening them first? In my experience incentives are far more powerful than threats.
Perhaps britain leaving genuinely will collapse the whole idea and France have just grown attached to the support for agriculture the EU offer.
What does the EU do that the G8, G20, UN, NATO, etc doesn't already do?
I saw something today about the French president(?) discussing consequences and border issues...as well as affecting an exclusive French/UK agreement.
Basically the EU is an intergovernmental organization that allows it's member states to operate as one single economy, which requires far greater coordination and deeper involvement than trade talks common on the level of the G8/20 and the UN.
NATO is a defense pact and still pretty much the corner stone of western defense. EU military initiatives so far mostly concern small scale border operations and peacekeeping.
Lot of mud being slung about, cries of "scaremongering" are pretty loud right now. Well this is one problem that needs addressing.
Is it scaremongering to highlight potential problems that could arise?
The out campaign have it a bit easier here, they have nothing to lose by getting what they want, conversely, the in campaign are trying to point out what will be lost.
It's identical to the Scottish Independence campaign in that respect.
It is easier to put a positive slant on forging a brave new world, and it is much harder to make a case for maintaining the status quo, particularly when so many things are obscure, unclear, or taken for granted.
Personally, if I was in charge of the in campaign I would be highlighting, everywhere, the positives of being a member of the EU, how it directly affects and benefits every single person in the UK. That then leaves out campaigners to either come up with a reason why we would get the same or better if we leave, or try and deflect the campaign with rhetoric about foreigners.
So with that in mind, I have sourced some interesting, verifiable articles from respected organisations and will try to make a positive case for EU membership. But only one post at a time.
I suppose the question is then, was that actually an EU thing, or an ECHR thing? I'm probably guessing the latter.
It still seems to me that there should be someone in the political classes that realises that, it's actually in their own personal benefit (because, well, politicians), to say, "look, I've had staff and think tanks do research. Here's the pros and cons."
I never thought I'd live to see the day when a British Prime Minister stands by and says nothing, whilst a French President threatens Britain, but I suppose that sums up David Cameron to a T.
Now that I've calmed down a bit and thought this out, the French threats are so impractical as to be worthless.
Any attempt by France to pass on migrants to the UK, could be easily countered by Eurostar, Ferry Companies et al refusing to take them on health and safety ground/lack of proper documentation.
And of course, the UK could always sends them back to France.
If the UK played hardball, they could always suspend cross-channel traffic and shut down the channel tunnel for a while, for 'maintenance work.'
I'm sure French farmers and industry will be happy with that.
Not for the first time, the French government are peddling a load of gak!
The first aspect of the In and Out campaign I've looked at is boringly, but importantly, Economics.
Does it make financial sense to stay in the EU?
I've tried to ensure that my sources do not comprise opinion, but are directly attributable to official Govt, or recognised official Trade or Industry organisations. Please be aware, I am no economist, and I may make incorrect assumptions or statements based on poor knowledge. If you know better, please offer a correction.
Briefly I think that Britain is considerably richer as a member of the EU, infact I estimate, as a nation we are £1190.38 Million a Week better off.
I based this from the figures offered in the House of Commons Briefing Paper Number 06091, 19 January 2016. You can have a look HERE to see from where I've made my assumptions.
My calculation is based from the figures presented there. The CBI claim that our economic partnership with the EU is worth £3000 per household per year. Vote Leave state that we pay £350 million a week to the EU. ONS states that, in 2014, there are 26.7 million households in the UK.
So,
26.7 million x £3000 = £80100 million
£80,100 million / 52 weeks = £1540.38 million per week (Gross)
£1540.38 million - £350 million = £1190.38 million per week (Net)
So how do the CBI come up with the £3000 per household per year figure? That's when it gets very complicated, and TBH it tests my ability to be able to definitely say. However, for those of you with the wherewithal you can read the CBI Press release from 04th November 2013HERE
Discuss.....
I'm going to be having a look at legislation, immigration and migration, and National Sovereignty as separate issues a bit later on, but I do have other stuff to do.
Exactly. At the end of the day, money speaks and the UK imports from the EU far more than it exports. I can't see any business who'd stand by and let their government engage in petty tit for tat trade wars at the expensive of their customers in the UK. It makes no sense. Remember, the UK is one of the richest nations on the earth and outside of the EU it will then be free to engage in free trade with anyone we like and we'd regain our WTO seat to boot. We'd be able to do what we like: "Hey, USA, we got cash and the EU is being stubborn, fancy selling to us?" "No problem, buddy, step right this way." "India, EU's not selling these goods. Fancy selling to us? We'd give you preferential treatment and maybe even ease our immigration controls to Indian nationals." "No problem friend, lets have a talk?" "Brazil? We got cash, and want to buy things the EU won't sell us." etc etc. Besides, I'd have thought that an US economic partner, regardless of scale, on its doorstep would be an EU nightmare.
Also, I'd hardly call the CBI an unbiased source as they are adamant in remaining regardless of anything that happens. They are project fear incarnate.
That article is a tad optimistic, methinks. If there's a problem with unemployment as-is, how is unilateral free trade with the entire world going to make things better?
I agree with the article that EU is a constraint both on stupidity and excellence, but I'd rather have a system that minimises the awful. It really comes down to risk-aversion vs. profit maximisation.
I will say this, regardless of the stance the reader takes with the article, it's nice to read an optimistic piece. They're rare as gold at the moment...
notprop wrote: That assumes that we loose all trade with Europe upon leaving the EU; which is a false assumption. We will carry on trading with Europe and vis versa.
There is a question of Tariffs but that will also work both ways. I think pragmatism will prevail over petty vengeance here.
The question is, what will change? The UK is outside of Schengen and the Eurozone which means no changes to there if the UK leaves. The UK financial, service and industrial sectors are well integrated in the European economy. A contribution fee and freedom of movement is part of the common market package, as is accepting most if not all of the regulations.
The only change I can see is at the political level: Westminster loses it's direct influence on EU decision making but gains the freedom to pursue its own foreign policy and make individual deals with other nations. This may or not be beneficial in the long term but who knows.
I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.
Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.
Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.
One of four, the Italians pay a similar gross amount (around 15billion euro). The effect on the EU budget is limited as the UK would also lose the money it receives back from EU spending. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start) the net amount the UK contributes to the EU is a little under 4 billion euro. That is hardly difficult to compensate.
Kilkrazy wrote: In Germany there is some resistance to the idea that the government should lock up undesirable people in camps.
So they don't have prisons?
Illegal immigrants are not just undesirables, they're criminals by definition.
Careful. Texas started deporting illegals from Mexico and other countries when they were pulled over for minor traffic violations. The whole world went ape-gak, and came down on the state for breaking up families.
You can't deport people that are here illegally. That's against the law!
Edit: off-topic: Having known some kids that were here illegally, but basically their whole lives, A-B students in High School, and now can't get into college, WTF do you do?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.
Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.
One of four, the Italians pay a similar gross amount (around 15billion euro). The effect on the EU budget is limited as the UK would also lose the money it receives back from EU spending. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start) the net amount the UK contributes to the EU is a little under 4 billion euro. That is hardly difficult to compensate.
Without chipping in anywhere else, you've linked to figures from a decade ago there (when we were in a recession), which undermines your point somewhat. In 2015, we actually contributed a net sum of about 10.4 billion pounds, with deductions/rebate/everything else taken into account. It's been heavily on the rise since our economy got better (for example, it was only eight and a half billion in 2013). Generally speaking, the better our economy gets, the more the EU takes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I never thought I'd live to see the day when a British Prime Minister stands by and says nothing, whilst a French President threatens Britain, but I suppose that sums up David Cameron to a T.
Now that I've calmed down a bit and thought this out, the French threats are so impractical as to be worthless.
Any attempt by France to pass on migrants to the UK, could be easily countered by Eurostar, Ferry Companies et al refusing to take them on health and safety ground/lack of proper documentation.
And of course, the UK could always sends them back to France.
If the UK played hardball, they could always suspend cross-channel traffic and shut down the channel tunnel for a while, for 'maintenance work.'
I'm sure French farmers and industry will be happy with that.
Not for the first time, the French government are peddling a load of gak!
Not at all.
Essentially, we have border posts in France. This means if we don't want someone, they never get to the UK. That will change if our relationship with France suffers, which it will if we take our toys and go home.
The Out campaign needs to start assembling real plans rather than xenophobia from the tabloids. Like how they'd renogatiate thousands of trade treaties and get a good deal. Because IDS and Boris Johnson are plainly incapable of doing so - the initiatives they've been in charge of have generally been disasters, delivered years late.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think'd probably harm the EU more than it harms us. The UK is probably one of the three BIG EU Member states besides Germany and France. If Britain leaves, thats gonna be a huge blow to the EU, if not a death blow. German and French taxpayers would have to pick up the slack, and shoulder even more of the burden of paying for the Mediterranean nations like Greece.
Merkel's reputation and popularity is already in tatters after all the German funded bailouts and out of control immigration.
One of four, the Italians pay a similar gross amount (around 15billion euro). The effect on the EU budget is limited as the UK would also lose the money it receives back from EU spending. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start) the net amount the UK contributes to the EU is a little under 4 billion euro. That is hardly difficult to compensate.
Without chipping in anywhere else, you've linked to figures from a decade ago there (when we were in a recession), which undermines your point somewhat. In 2015, we actually contributed a net sum of about 10.4 billion pounds, with deductions/rebate/everything else taken into account. It's been heavily on the rise since our economy got better (for example, it was only eight and a half billion in 2013). Generally speaking, the better our economy gets, the more the EU takes.
That is a fair addition although it changes little to my point as every west European country pays more in an upswing. The gross amount hasn't changed much over time which was +/- 19 billion euro for the UK last year. Without the UK the EU would lose a little over 10% of it's annual budget. Given the small sums relative to GDP, losing the UK contribution would be a minor worry.
zedmeister wrote: Exactly. At the end of the day, money speaks and the UK imports from the EU far more than it exports. I can't see any business who'd stand by and let their government engage in petty tit for tat trade wars at the expensive of their customers in the UK. It makes no sense. Remember, the UK is one of the richest nations on the earth and outside of the EU it will then be free to engage in free trade with anyone we like and we'd regain our WTO seat to boot. We'd be able to do what we like:
"Hey, USA, we got cash and the EU is being stubborn, fancy selling to us?" "No problem, buddy, step right this way."
"India, EU's not selling these goods. Fancy selling to us? We'd give you preferential treatment and maybe even ease our immigration controls to Indian nationals." "No problem friend, lets have a talk?"
"Brazil? We got cash, and want to buy things the EU won't sell us."
etc etc. Besides, I'd have thought that an US economic partner, regardless of scale, on its doorstep would be an EU nightmare.
One problem you've overlooked is that, if we choose to leave, the EU will immediately become a competitor. A large, multi national competitor who's business interests may hamper, or even cripple the UK, and over which we will have the most negligible of influence. If China can choose between trading between the vast economy of the EU, with it's millions of citizens, or the UK, it may choose the larger market. The EU will continue to offer the Germans, French, Italians bargaining powers which the UK would struggle to match.
The same goes for trade with the US. The "Special Relationship" that the UK and the US share is mostly a feel good nicety. We may share a common history and language, but on the world stage it's a very different matter. If it's in the USA's best interest to make deals with the EU that may freeze out, or even harm the UK, they will almost certainly do it. Not out of spite, but because it's just business, nothing personal.
zedmeister wrote: Also, I'd hardly call the CBI an unbiased source as they are adamant in remaining regardless of anything that happens. They are project fear incarnate.
Well, the CBI, the Confederation of Business Industry is an independent lobbyist group, Nationally recognised they actively seek, to quote from their mission statement...
"... to promote the conditions in which businesses of all sizes and sectors in the UK can compete and prosper for the benefit of all. To achieve this, we campaign in the UK, the EU and internationally for a competitive policy landscape."
They represent around 190'000 UK business'. If you have any interest in how leaving the EU will effect business, then you can't do much worse than listen to what they have to say. I'd certainly trust their instincts and evaluations over those of Boris Johnson, or any of the other Political "Heavyweights" who are coming down on the out side.
I am not arguing that the UK cannot survive outside of the EU, we most certainly can, however, I am arguing the case that we are much better off staying in the Union. It is in our National interest to remain economically engaged in the EU.
There would unlikely be a financial Armageddon if we go, but we would definitely have less money to play with.
That's probably because the EU recalculated that we owed another large chunk of cash due to improvements in the economy mid last year. There was a whole political wrangle, with George Osborne attempting to pretend we weren't paying extra by reclassifying half of it, and kicking half of it into next years payment (or somesuch thing). Ergo, the actual figure is higher then that document would suggest.
I feel I should note here I'm making no statement as to how easy it is 'replace' ten billion pounds in income, more just pointing out the actual figures.
One problem you've overlooked is that, if we choose to leave, the EU will immediately become a competitor. A large, multi national competitor who's business interests may hamper, or even cripple the UK, and over which we will have the most negligible of influence. If China can choose between trading between the vast economy of the EU, with it's millions of citizens, or the UK, it may choose the larger market. The EU will continue to offer the Germans, French, Italians bargaining powers which the UK would struggle to match. The same goes for trade with the US. The "Special Relationship" that the UK and the US share is mostly a feel good nicety. We may share a common history and language, but on the world stage it's a very different matter. If it's in the USA's best interest to make deals with the EU that may freeze out, or even harm the UK, they will almost certainly do it. Not out of spite, but because it's just business, nothing personal.
Like everything else, we'll always be competing inside or outside the EU. We still compete with Germany, France and all the rest even though we're in the EU and that won't change. In terms of trading globally, why would (choosing your example) China choose one or the other and not both? Again, we're one of the richest nations. It'd be crazy for any business not to want a piece of the cashpile. As for the US special relationship, well, that's only special in a certain limited set of heads in the UK government
I dislike the CBI in that they claim to speak for business but of that 190,000, most are indirect members (represented by various trade bodies and loose associations). And Farming makes up a quarter of that number at least. Who in that bunch has the most to loose from leaving the EU? Farming. So, I count CBI as a biased source.
And again, should we Leave, we will still be engaged with the EU but outside of it's crappy political structures and we'd loose some definitely but we'd also game some and a lot more besides. There is no unique advantage to staying in the EU that couldn't be achieved through some other means.
Just becausr the UK is in the EU it doesn't mean thaGermany, Italy, Franfe, etc automatically stop manufacturing and exporting similar stuff that the UK manufactures and exports (or even sells internally).
More influence from the inside, than from the outside.
Also, I feel I need to restate something.
The EU would become a direct competitor with virtually every market we would attempt to enter into.
As long as we are part of the EU, they can act on our behalf, and secure better trade deals with other large non-EU states. It's obvious why, it's a large, internationally recognised organisation, with considerably more clout than we have on our own.
In a nutshell, the EU has more to offer in order to secure preferential trade agreements for its members.
The UK is a lot of things, and has a great deal to offer, but it simply cannot compete on the same scale, we simply don't have the influence anymore. Haven't had for quite a while.
If we leave, we will be a wealthy, but small nation, sidelined on the world stage, and will most likely be left in the wake of the rest of Europe as they team together to draw on shared resources and structure.
r_squared wrote: More influence from the inside, than from the outside.
Also, I feel I need to restate something.
The EU would become a direct competitor with virtually every market we would attempt to enter into.
As long as we are part of the EU, they can act on our behalf, and secure better trade deals with other large non-EU states. It's obvious why, it's a large, internationally recognised organisation, with considerably more clout than we have on our own.
In a nutshell, the EU has more to offer in order to secure preferential trade agreements for its members.
You're mixing up concepts here. There's being a 'competitor', and there's 'negotiating trade agreements'. Not only that, you're talking in generalities, and your summary begins to fall apart when we consider the specifics.
For example, to focus on 'competition' aspect, what are we competing to do, buy or sell? If it's buying, there's no particularly scarce product made in China/America/Japan that isn't either available elsewhere (negating any monopoly problems), and no country would be willing to extend trade terms to the EU they wouldn't be equally willing to extend to us if they wanted to keep our custom. If it's selling, we run a services based economy. There's nowhere else in this part of the world that can begin to compete with the City of London, and the EU is only a small part of that (other aspects include the default business language of the world being English, a convenient neutral ground between the Continent, America, Russia, Asia, etc). Much as places like Vienna might love to jump on that one, it won't change any time soon. Our stability as a political system (making our property extra valuable) isn't something that can be replicated elsewhere, and things like our educational sector's reputation isn't going to be affected by EU participation. The high tech sector? Hardly exclusive here to begin with, and I daresay we can support that well enough. The EU as a whole doesn't sponsor 'industries' in that way anyway due to anti-competitive laws built in. If you're not talking about any of those though, well, the above covers a goodly chunk of what we 'sell'. If it's alright, we probably will be.
The UK is a lot of things, and has a great deal to offer, but it simply cannot compete on the same scale, we simply don't have the influence anymore. Haven't had for quite a while.
If we leave, we will be a wealthy, but small nation, sidelined on the world stage, and will most likely be left in the wake of the rest of Europe as they team together to draw on shared resources and structure.
We haven't been competing in agriculture and manufacturing (which is what most of the EU offers) since the 1970's. We dropped those balls a long time ago. Chalk and cheese really. You're also assuming the EU won't collapse and burn after we exited, or morph into a totalitarian regime. As for being on the 'world stage', we still retain a level of military strike power unmatched by most and a nuclear deterrent. I don't think we'll be exiled from the big boy's table anytime soon.
Don't get me wrong, the concepts you're bandying about have a good solid place in economics, but when it comes to this particular scenario, they're really not overly relevant. We'd be more akin to Japan than Finland.
Ketara wrote: You're also assuming the EU won't collapse and burn after we exited, or morph into a totalitarian regime.
Oh, wow!
This discussion is kinda pointless, if Brexit camp lives in a reality where EU becoming a totalitarian regime is considered a realistic possibility...
I'm not in the Brexit camp. And many regimes have started from far less auspicious circumstances. Also the more general point being made regardless (if you'd paid closer attention) was that there were assumptions being made about the future of the EU when there was no certainty as regards that future
But by all means don't let me ruin your fun, carry on slopping whitewash all over that 'Brexit' strawman....
It was not a strawman, it was literally what you said. And to have an intelligent conversation it is kinda required that participants have at least some sort of a grasp of reality. You have seemed relatively well informed thus far, but that bit about totalitarism was just surreal.
Crimson wrote: It was not a strawman, it was literally what you said. And to have an intelligent conversation it is kinda required that participants have at least some sort of a grasp of reality. You have seemed relatively well informed thus far, but that bit about totalitarism was just surreal.
I wrote a piece or two on that a while back. I'll stick them here in spoiler tags for you:-
The whole EU project is like a ratchet democracy. We edge ever closer in a single direction, no deviation and no way to revert any changes. Sure, a few delays and grumbling happens, but that wheel marked "The European Project" cranks ever onwards, unaffected by elections, MEPs or member states wishes.
This is what bothers me about Europe, and I know it bothers other people too. Da Boss has made it plain that he feels Britain is IN Europe, but we just hang around at the edges, grumbling and obstructing. And he's right. But I don't think that's entirely our fault necessarily, and is more a direct result of the way the EU integration project has happened.
In a nutshell, we signed up for a trade agreement. That entailed setting common trade standards and measurements, an easing of visa application process, etc. But it was basically a trade agreement. As time has rolled on though, the EU integrationists have gradually pushed EU law and responsibility into more and more places where it never had anything to do with anything. Because they have feared a public backlash if they ever stood up and announced the 'United States of Europe', they've always done it subtly. If a country gives an inch, take another, and then don't give it back. Ever. The result has been people feeling, more and more uneasily, that the EU is taking over, and so they've protest voted nobs like Farage into Europe, to try and delay it.
The result has been that the EU bureaucracy has deliberately evolved in such a way as to be unaccountable. To be obscure. To be obfuscatory. In the same way you can't cancel a phone contract if you don't know who to talk to. Nobody ever stands up and says 'I propose the United States of Europe', instead you get some quangocrat proposing that an extension of this law into such another area is a logical proposal, the EUP signs off on it (because nobody pays attention to them when there are national politcs to watch), and gradually gradually, the EU is extended. So now we have an EU President and Foreign Affairs Minister. Then we'll have intelligence co-operation. Next thing is, it'll be a joint border force. Then a multi-national police squad. Which becomes an agency. etcetc. All very slowly slowly, nice and subtle.
The issue as I see it, is that such methods are counter-intuitive to democracy. If a 'United States of Europe' arises by such methods over the next fifty years, what kind of institution will it be? I suspect it will be a highly unaccountable, and somewhat facist one. No regime that comes about from methods like these could be a good one, I think.
What is needed in Europe, is real leadership. Someone with a vision. Someone who stands up and says, 'THIS is what Europe should be'. Be it a two tier trade agreement, a federal power bloc, or a completely integrated unit. Someone who lays it all out, gives it in nice digestible form to voters everywhere, and lets people decide if they're in favour or not.
And you know? It quite possibly should be us at this stage. We've shown little leadership or anything to do with anything right here. We just go, 'change it to something slightly more palatable for the electorate, or we're gone'. We sit and wait, and expect somebody else who represents 'Europe' to cut a deal. When sadly, nobody else in the EU is willing to be forthright, and nobody in the national governments cares enough. If Cameron had the balls, he should be standing up, as one of the G8, the second strongest economy in the EU, one of the world military powers, and saying, 'This is the EU Britain wants to work for. The structure that we want to create, the plan that will determine the future of this organisation. These are the reforms that we need to talk over, the big issues that need to be decided. And soon! Are you in for it, or are we out?' Instead we get, 'Can somebody sign off on a few treaty changes please? Or we might have to pootle off and do our own thing.'
But instead, he's like the rest. No vision. So nobody in Europe does anything.The result is that the EU continues to swell gradually, imperceptibly, like a tumour, gathering power to itself for no other purpose than the acquisition of power.
So! As the voter sitting here now, I'm asking myself. Would I rather be a part of what the EU looks like it will become? Or do I accept that we should probably take a slight hit to our economy and prosperity, but retain our democratic institutions? I had hoped that something clear would emerge from these negotiations, some positive sign of the EU's future that would make it clear to me that we should stay. Instead, I've seen nothing but obfuscation from the European side, and inept leadership all around. The result is that I am beginning to lean slightly towards leaving. We shall see how things proceed....
Spoiler:
When Britain joined, it was primarily because our own attempted trade organisation had failed, we were in the economic doldrums, and we saw the economic prosperity the EU was in and wanted a piece. The French denied us access a few times, but when we finally got in, make no mistake about it, our motivation was trade. Some vague twenty year old comment about pushing European cultural integration really did not register particularly highly on our radar, and the extent to which the EU's tentacles now reach into every level of governmental process was completely unforeseen (by the public at least, and by the government as well I suspect).
Since that time, we've had the vast push eastwards to incoporate as many members as possible. We've had the introduction of the Euro. The Schengen zone. Both of the latter we've managed to stay out of, but it was a narrow thing. There's been a very deliberate drive within the EU to create law on more and more things, and set up cross-border organisations for more and more things. Inter-European arrest warrants would be a good example there. We've got a European President and Foreign Policy now. And I don't believe these things were envisioned back in 1955, nor in the '72 when we joined. So where does it all stop?
The problem with sharing a currency with 26 countries and no real central fiscal control has become apparent. The logical thing to do is to centralise fiscal policy. There's a massive immigration problem across the EU right now. The logical thing to do is to create a joint border patrol force. The terrorism issues? Create a European police/intelligence agency to deal with the matter.
These issues are the ones causing the problems right now, because the obvious solutions mark what I deem to be the final steps towards guaranteeing the creation a Federal Institution in effect if not name (that'll follow on later). Once fiscal policy and currency are centralised, taxation will fall easily. Once the borders and intelligence agencies are merged, the army and police will be shortly behind. And every step of the way, it will be logical, because having a shared currency/borders without those controls and steps just breeds more problems than it solves (as we have seen).
The EU is not willing to make an obvious power grab for these things. Nationalist sentiment is at it's highest ever, and they're not powerful enough. As you noted, they are still technically subservient. Anything too obvious, and they'll face a horrible backlash. But they are aware that, none of the national political leaders of Europe are willing to take a step back and say, 'Schengen/the Euro is clearly not working on this level, let's scrap them', and nobody has the vision to reform the EU structurally. Instead, we get much dithering and hole patching, and temporary solutions. As long as we're not going backwards, we're going forwards, and as said, once any kind of authority/power is ceded to the EU, it never comes back.
The EU superstate is not a done thing yet. Yet. But it's not far off now, and not much more integration is required to make it inevitable, I believe. If nobody puts forward a clear structural vision of where we want Europe to go in the next decade or two, it will ponder along much the way it has done so far, and will become a federal state. Slowly. Painfully. It'll probably take the next forty/fifty years before we finally have a common flag (so to speak). But I believe (you are free to disagree), that the crunch point at which it becomes inevitable is rapidly approaching.
To me, that means I need to decide if we need to pull out now, or if there's still hope. Because as stated, I don't think the institution that will evolve from the current process will be a particularly democratic or good one. YMMV.
Being a member of the military for the last 18 years, your comment about our strike power made me smile somewhat.
I've not said we won't be alright though, I have mentioned a number of times that I believe we would be OK, just not as well off as if we were within the EU.
I am interested to learn about why you think the EU will collapse after we leave? That's quite a statement considering how invested the Germans and French are, to name but 2 countries.
Besides, if the EU did collapse, it is likely that the world economy would take a substantial hit, us included. That is very much a scenario no sane, or thoughtful individual would entertain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Personally, I do agree that perceived power creep is a real issue and fear that must be addressed. I have to admit, it's not a subject I am 100% up on, and I will be looking into it a bit more.
r_squared wrote: Personally, I do agree that perceived power creep is a real issue and fear that must be addressed. I have to admit, it's not a subject I am 100% up on, and I will be looking into it a bit more.
That "power creep" is NEVER going to be addressed. The entire purpose of the European Project is 'ever closer union'. The end goal is and has always been a European super state.
Ever closer union does more or less equal a power creep towards a unified United States of Europe. My biggest issue is with how they are going to achieve that goal. I don't think going down this route is the right way. There is too little accountability.
I reckon that us leaving, will give other dissatisfied countries the idea that they can leave too. Not even countries but EuroSkeptics across Europe will realise that there is a way out.
I have the horrible feeling that if we don't leave the EU will go "Everytime is fine, nothing is broken!" And not look at the reasons at why one of the most powerful countries in Europe was a vote close to leaving.
r_squared wrote: Being a member of the military for the last 18 years, your comment about our strike power made me smile somewhat.
I've seen enough facepalms around the JSCSC with regards to current (and indeed, previous) military procurement policy to be completely on board with you there.
At the same time though, we have more amphibious and distance fighting capabilities (or at least, will have once the new carriers come online...) than any other country in the world bar America. Which is nothing to sniff at. China will probably overtake us in the next decade, but we're not doing too badly for a small island of 67 million people!
I've not said we won't be alright though, I have mentioned a number of times that I believe we would be OK, just not as well off as if we were within the EU.
I am interested to learn about why you think the EU will collapse after we leave? That's quite a statement considering how invested the Germans and French are, to name but 2 countries.
Besides, if the EU did collapse, it is likely that the world economy would take a substantial hit, us included. That is very much a scenario no sane, or thoughtful individual would entertain.
I'm not saying it /will collapse, any more than I said it /would become a totalitarian regime. I merely pointed them out as possibilities, to underline the fact that the future was very much an unknowable quantity. Other possibilities would be the emergence of some form of dazzling political leader who unifies it into democratic utopia, a partial collapse which leads to a unification of the core countries with strong economies, nuclear war, and a slow decrepit withering as more and more countries leave over the next few decades. Who can say what will occur?
The main point being made, was that assuming an independent Britain /would be overtaken and left behind by a resurgent European Union is nothing more than that. An assumption. And if history has shown one thing, it's that most institutions crumble and fail sooner or later, and usually sooner!
r_squared wrote: Personally, I do agree that perceived power creep is a real issue and fear that must be addressed. I have to admit, it's not a subject I am 100% up on, and I will be looking into it a bit more.
That "power creep" is NEVER going to be addressed. The entire purpose of the European Project is 'ever closer union'. The end goal is and has always been a European super state.
Mr Juncker said that there could be no further negotiations with Britain in the event of a ‘No’ vote.
“It would be very nice if we could put this topic into the attic of world history as soon as possible because if we had to deal with this issue for years to come then everything would go wrong in Europe.
“Therefore, there must not be any renegotiations with the British, who I like otherwise, in case of a 'No'.
"Not only because the British Prime Minister voted against me when I wanted to become president of the Commission but also because he was so glad that we helped him to get a grip on his problem, his self-induced problem.”
When the head of the EU commission is tossing statements like that around, it takes you aback a little. I don't have a problem with him saying, 'No renegotiations', but ascribing part of the reason as being because we voted against him getting into that position? Not exactly very professional. And labelling the referendum a 'problem' and 'contagious'? I'm really not getting a vibe from someone who likes democracy here.
I want the people in the EU to give me a reason to want to stay. They seem determined to do the opposite though...
Yep that's the problem with a lot of talk here. It is if EU had will of its own, or at least there were a federalist illuminati running things. Sure, there actually are some people who want Federal Europe, and then there are many who don't want that. Despite what is being claimed, EU is fairly democratic (sure, it could be more transparent) and the decisions about future of EU are being made by people we ourselves have elected (or in case of the Commission, people who are appointed by the people we have elected.)
Mr Juncker said that there could be no further negotiations with Britain in the event of a ‘No’ vote.
“It would be very nice if we could put this topic into the attic of world history as soon as possible because if we had to deal with this issue for years to come then everything would go wrong in Europe.
“Therefore, there must not be any renegotiations with the British, who I like otherwise, in case of a 'No'.
"Not only because the British Prime Minister voted against me when I wanted to become president of the Commission but also because he was so glad that we helped him to get a grip on his problem, his self-induced problem.”
When the head of the EU commission is tossing statements like that around, it takes you aback a little. I don't have a problem with him saying, 'No renegotiations', but ascribing part of the reason as being because we voted against him getting into that position? Not exactly very professional. And labelling the referendum a 'problem' and 'contagious'? I'm really not getting a vibe from someone who likes democracy here.
I want the people in the EU to give me a reason to want to stay. They seem determined to do the opposite though...
Junker is a tool. But people across Europe elected right wing arseholes to the European Parliament, and therefore his bloc had the biggest number of votes. I was pretty pissed off when he got in. I had a thread about it here on Dakka. Junker the arsehole exists because of people voting a particular way.
The referendum IS a problem. Just as the Scottish referendum was a problem for British unionists. Not surprising. He's stupid to mention that he thinks so of course, but a British exit makes the collapse of the Union more likely. I still think you should be allowed a referendum, and Hungary too if they want. The case must be made for Europe in a positive sense, and if we can't do that and people therefore want to leave, that's fair enough. I believe the corporate capture in the EU is much more of a problem than federalisation.
But yeah. Junker is a spanker. Vote socialists into the European Parliament to get rid of him.
But yeah. Junker is a spanker. Vote socialists into the European Parliament to get rid of him.
Then you most likely would get a red Junker. His offensive policies and outbursts are connected to his federalist demands for control and dismissive attitude to accountability, which are independent of whether he is left or right wing.
Interesting article in the Spectator about Turkey's relationship with the EU, and how the Turks could use the threat of migrants flooding the EU to extract concessions from the EU, including a possible fast-track membership plan
For those not familiar with the Spectator, its politics veer to the right, but the article still raises some interesting points.
As James Forsyth mentioned earlier this week, things could get much worse in Turkey. Indeed, they will. Europe’s hope that Turkey will continue to soak up migrants is at best naive; at worst, irresponsible.
Europe desperately needs Turkey to serve as a migrant waiting room on its borders. In exchange, it has offered an acceleration of the EU admission process. In November, Turkey was promised visa-free travel to the Schengen zone by 2016. In December, after five years of standstill, negotiations concerning economic and monetary policies linked to Turkey’s EU membership were reopened.
This entire deal rests on the peculiar idea that, if given the chance, Turkey would be a Europhile with the zeal of a convert. When the incumbent Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu came into office, he declared that January 2015 would be ‘European month’. Soon after, his government inaugurated a five-year European strategy aiming to close all accession chapters in just two years. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he marched with the other leaders in Paris. All this was sending a clear message: ‘We are part of Europe. Europe is us, we are Europe.’
However Davutoğlu’s words should be taken like ayran, Turkey’s non-alcoholic national drink: with a pinch of salt. All the cosying up came to nothing when President Erdoğan forcefully supressed the Gezi Park demonstrations. In a symbolic twist, the visiting German Green Party leader wound up tear-gassed at the event. What’s more, it has been suggested recently that Erdoğan’s government may be supporting the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). Some traced this to a shared conservative Islamist ideology; others to the shared goal of weakening the Kurds, a strategy that is unlikely to find many European allies.
The promise of EU accession is in itself a fundamental paradox. Europe is encouraging Turkey to retain migrants within its borders. In exchange it is promising Turkey EU membership. Presumably, such membership would entail the free movement of people. Then, all poorly-tracked and half-integrated refugees would be free to complete their journey to Europe. The gapping hole in the plan shows just how little thought or credibility the offer of membership has been given.
Why then, has Turkey been entertaining migrant negotiations with the EU? All this boils down to a simple truth that the EU must understand if it wants to continue this pragmatic partnership: Turkey’s foreign policy is an extension of Erdoğan’s domestic policy. The recent negotiations over the migrant crisis have given the President what he wants. He will take particular pride in showing the West that Europe needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Europe.
And make no mistake, Turkey is well aware of its upper hand in these negotiations. In last month’s leaked recordings, Erdoğan told Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker that with the proposed 3 billion Euro support, Turkey might as well ‘open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria anytime and we can put the refugees on buses’. With Chancellor Merkel flying over for talks with Davutoğlu and Erdoğan every few weeks, it is a sure sign of desperation. Turkey is also well aware that the leaders of Germany and France — two of the most immigrant-strained countries — are both facing elections in 2016 and 2017. It is only a matter of time before the blackmail intensifies.
But the clock is ticking. As Europe struggles for leverage, Turkey continues to take in refugees. Turkey has so far housed 2.5 million immigrants, spending close to $10 billion to date. In the early days of the Syrian civil war, Ankara’s self-confidence committed it to an open-door policy. Only some 10 percent of these refugees are currently living in camps. So far the assimilation has been relatively seamless, thanks to the regional ethnic similarities, Muslim majority and accommodating informal economy.
But now, things are beginning to creak at the seams. This summer, 33 people were killed in the Kurdish town of Suruç by a suicide bomber. In October, an explosion at a peace rally in Ankara took 102 lives. In January, ten Germans were killed in Istanbul’s Sultan Ahmet by an Isis-affiliated bomber.
What is more, a cottage industry of fake-life jackets has been one of the least palatable by-products of the crisis in Turkey. In January the police seized over 1250 non-buoyant jackets from Izmir. In the tradition of ‘Pradda’ bags, the lifejackets were labelled ‘Yamaxa’, rather than Yamaha.
What happens when Turkey reaches capacity? It is time for us to smell the coffee. Turkey has no real interest in bailing out Europe and the EU is running out of things to offer. The real question is this – when will Turkey’s floodgates open?
So turkey is accepting any and all because no matter how much of a problem they make, they will be taken to Europe by bus as soon as turkey gets into the schengen zone?
It seems that the world is just not universally civilised enough for the type of arrangements the EU wants to make and borders are still required.
Maybe the EU's biggest failing is actually it's hubris?
Turkey does not meet the entry criteria, surely? Allowing them to join would involve turning a blind eye and breaking the rules, as the EU did when it turned a blind eye to Greece's dodgy financials.
Turkey has severe issues with human rights. Its an authoritarian state that arrests journalists and forcibly nationalizes newspapers. It turns a blind eye to terrorism when convenient, and is using ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. Its also indirectly helping ISIS through its bombing campaign against the Kurds. And secularism in Turkey is becoming undermined by moves to Islamize the country.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Turkey does not meet the entry criteria, surely? Allowing them to join would involve turning a blind eye and breaking the rules, as the EU did when it turned a blind eye to Greece's dodgy financials.
Turkey has severe issues with human rights. Its an authoritarian state that arrests journalists and forcibly nationalizes newspapers. It turns a blind eye to terrorism when convenient, and is using ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. Its also indirectly helping ISIS through its bombing campaign against the Kurds. And secularism in Turkey is becoming undermined by moves to Islamize the country.
It's also one of the worlds strongest economies. It's in the top 20. Money is power.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Turkey does not meet the entry criteria, surely? Allowing them to join would involve turning a blind eye and breaking the rules, as the EU did when it turned a blind eye to Greece's dodgy financials.
Turkey has severe issues with human rights. Its an authoritarian state that arrests journalists and forcibly nationalizes newspapers. It turns a blind eye to terrorism when convenient, and is using ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. Its also indirectly helping ISIS through its bombing campaign against the Kurds. And secularism in Turkey is becoming undermined by moves to Islamize the country.
Yep, it won't happen. I have nothing against Turkey joining if they fix their human rights situation, but it doesn't seem like they're in any hurry with that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Turkey does not meet the entry criteria, surely? Allowing them to join would involve turning a blind eye and breaking the rules, as the EU did when it turned a blind eye to Greece's dodgy financials.
Turkey has severe issues with human rights. Its an authoritarian state that arrests journalists and forcibly nationalizes newspapers. It turns a blind eye to terrorism when convenient, and is using ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. Its also indirectly helping ISIS through its bombing campaign against the Kurds. And secularism in Turkey is becoming undermined by moves to Islamize the country.
Yep, it won't happen. I have nothing against Turkey joining if they fix their human rights situation, but it doesn't seem like they're in any hurry with that.
If the European elite wants it to happen, they'll make it happen. Human Rights or no.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Turkey does not meet the entry criteria, surely? Allowing them to join would involve turning a blind eye and breaking the rules, as the EU did when it turned a blind eye to Greece's dodgy financials.
Turkey has severe issues with human rights. Its an authoritarian state that arrests journalists and forcibly nationalizes newspapers. It turns a blind eye to terrorism when convenient, and is using ISIS to undermine the Syrian government. Its also indirectly helping ISIS through its bombing campaign against the Kurds. And secularism in Turkey is becoming undermined by moves to Islamize the country.
Yep, it won't happen. I have nothing against Turkey joining if they fix their human rights situation, but it doesn't seem like they're in any hurry with that.
If the European elite wants it to happen, they'll make it happen. Human Rights or no.
Europe has happily ignored its own continental dictatorships and authoritarian regimes since the end of ww2. It has happily ignored Turkeys continued efforts at extermination of the armenians and now the Kurds for years.
The EU has been happy to have Turkey as a manufacturing and industrial base for EU companies whilst actively committing abuses against protesters and dissidents.
It would be shameful to let Turkey into the EU but there are many pushing for it. Some just want to keep expanding the EU even to take in countries that are financially corrupt or have human rights abuses. The push for federalisation lead to letting countries into the single currency who shouldn't have been allowed. Countries like Greece are an obvious weak link, and when it all goes wrong Germany and others still expect non-Euro currency members to help bail out. A single currency with France and Germany I could consider, but not carrying weak economies like Greece and cleaning up their mess.
We'll be hearing a lot more about Turkey these next few months, and not just because of the Syrian civil war, and of course, the shameful crackdown on the Turkish press by the Turkish government, but because it's in the OUT camp's interest to keep pushing this.
Remain will probably win the economic argument, but OUT have got the immigration argument well and truly won.
But which argument will prevail: economy or immigration?
In a way it's sad to see the argument boiling down to this, because I believe that democracy should be at the forefront of our EU membership, but there you go...
I will say it now already: the UK referendum will result in the majority of British people voting to stay in the EU. My prediction is 55% stay and 45% leave if the Leave guys do a good campaign. Otherwise 63% stay and 37% leave, which is still a significant amount of EU-skeptics in the eyes of the shocked media.
Lets be real here. We're talking about ordinary Joe and Jane from down the street (and Abdul and Gupta and Vladimir the polish guy who also get to vote). And the bankers. And the businessmen. And the school teachers. And the nurses. And pretty much the majority of govt employees, professors and other academics in this country. You think all of these people want Britain to secede from the EU? Fat chance of that happening.
It's always easy to say "the EU" is the "people at Brussels over there who we didn't elect and who get to decide everything for us". It's nonsense. You and me, our local politicians, all of us are part of the EU. We elected our representatives in Brussels (if you bothered voting in the EU elections, that is) We have to actively work together to make this a better union rather than pointing the finger and laying the blame on others and not considering ourselves a part of the whole.
Because let's face it - the future is going to be dominated by Russia, China, Brazil, India and the US and if we break up into tiny nations the rest of the world will just laugh at us rather than taking our continent seriously ever again. Nationalism divides us into even tinier specs of insignificance - remember how Yugoslavia used to be a somewhat big and weighty country? Now it is a bunch of tiny countries and people cant even name most of them - literally insignificant - also, in fact all of you who were (are) so proud of the British Empire are obviously proud because of its size and dominating nature and the fact is that this empire was made up of many different faiths and creeds, which is exactly what the EU is all about. I doubt any one of you would look fondly to the days past, had England remained a small kingdom confined by its initial national borders. Therefore my recommendation is to say yes to a future in the EU, and help shape it, and be part of something greater, or revert back to a small island the size of guangdong province.
Also, like Sir Arun above, I think that it'll be about 60-40 in favour of Stay. I also think that if Leave does win, there will be another vote within a year or two that Stay will win, like in all the other places that have voted to leave.
Judging by the authors, I think it would be correct to say that this document reflects the intended future progress of the EU.
This report has been prepared by the President of the European Commission, in close cooperation with the President of the Euro Summit, the President of the Eurogroup, the President of the European Central Bank, and the President of the European Parliament.
Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union that ensures each economy has the structural features to prosper within the Monetary Union. Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing with the private sector. This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation. And finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening. All four Unions depend on each other. Therefore, they must develop in parallel and all euro area Member States must participate in all Unions.
That's pretty straightforward again.
This longer-term vision needs the measures in the short term to be ambitious. They need to stabilise the European house now and prepare the ground for a complete architecture in the medium term. This will inevitably involve sharing more sovereignty over time... In practice, this would require Member States to accept increasingly joint decision-making on elements of their respective national budgets and economic policies.
My word. Thank you for linking to the article which pointed out this document. It really is quite....enlightening. I find this following extract to be of great interest.
To secure EMU’s long-term success, we should go a step further and push for a deeper integration of national labour markets by facilitating geographic and professional mobility, including through better recognition of qualifications, easier access to public sector jobs for non-nationals and better coordination of social security systems.
So they intend to further break down national boundaries from EU citizens with regards to the job market and broaden the appropriate social welfare schemes. Which is more or less the exact opposite of what Cameron was trying to negotiate for. In light of that, I hold little hope of the agreements he made being honoured for any length of time.
There really is plenty of specifics in here to chew over. At least the desire for political Union is out in the open. Backed by all five Presidents, it also is beyond controversy. Now I simply need to decide if I am willing to hand my country's sovereignty over to the EU over the next fifteen years, or not. It really does make the choice that simple.
Yep that's the problem with a lot of talk here. It is if EU had will of its own, or at least there were a federalist illuminati running things.
Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to call them 'illuminati' (let's not be facetious), the signatories to the above document would seem to illustrate precisely who.
And they will just be the tip of the iceberg. There will be plenty of federalists throughout the various offices and quangos and suchlike beyond them. There's a reason there's such a unity of purpose at the top of the EU, it's because the people there are symptomatic of the people employed by the EU. I daresay there's probably a number of people who aren't the same, but the strength of the federalist drive has been clearly highlighted here. Certainly, it goes far beyond what was envisioned fifty, or even thirty years ago.
While all the other parties except the Conservatives have a single position, and almost all of those want in, the grass roots have a different idea.
There is a lot of focus on the right wing populace who want out, there is also a strong and largely overlooked movement in the traditional working class left who want out also. The Labour elite are mostly middle class and on Europe have more in common with the Lib Dems than traditional Labour. The old left is subdued but not gone, its still the largest voting block in the north and midlands.
The ethnic vote is also different than expected. The ideal is that ethnic minorities are in favour of immigration, because they immigrated. It mostly dovetails with the conditioning that claims anti-immigration is an issue of white right wing racists. Actually immigration is also an issue to the asian communities also.
Outside of immigration a lot of people are concerned with EU control moves, and those concerns break the left right divide. There is also a concern amongst the populace as a wghole that the polticians on both sides are voting for and against based on the interests of their favoured corporate paymasters. As both sides produce senior businessmen who claim that voting for the other is bad for British business it is easy to see how this comes about. After all both positions could be true, some businesses will benefit by remaining in the EU, others by its absence, and those business leaders out of self interest alone will call the entire referendum as good or bad for business solely on their own personal predicted profit or loss. As big business holds many MPs in its pocket, and certainly not just Tory ones, it is not a desperate stretch to speculate whether the MPs choices are based on the expected most profitable outcome for the specific company that promises to employ them once they have completed thier time in the Commons.
Ketara: Pretty fair arguments there. I think that's the real question you guys need to ask - do you want to be part of a federal Europe? Because I believe without federalization the union is doomed anyway.
I think it's a pretty reasonable point to pull out of the Union on personally. I can understand that standpoint.
Da Boss wrote: Do you want to be part of a federal Europe?
For me, this is the primary reason why I am voting leave. I don't hold romantic notions of "Empire", don't hold rabid tendencies when it comes to immigration (my mothers side are wholly Polish immigrants and the arrival of a new wave of Poles 10 years ago saw a boon in the Polish deli's and foods I used to eat We even had relations asking if they could crash for a month or two while they got a job!) and I am not worried about the economy. But federalism scares me. A lot. Federalism is, to me, project fear!
Da Boss wrote: Do you want to be part of a federal Europe?
For me, this is the primary reason why I am voting leave. I don't hold romantic notions of "Empire", don't hold rabid tendencies when it comes to immigration (my mothers side are wholly Polish immigrants and the arrival of a new wave of Poles 10 years ago saw a boon in the Polish deli's and foods I used to eat We even had relations asking if they could crash for a month or two while they got a job!) and I am not worried about the economy. But federalism scares me. A lot. Federalism is, to me, project fear!
Federalism has been hidden during this whole debate. Even the exit campaign haven't really drilled down into what the EU really wants. But this makes me wonder if the Exit campaign really thinks they can be part of the EU exercise and still remain independent of a federalised structure. They seem to give that message even though the end game is pretty clearly laid out.
Da Boss wrote: Ketara: Pretty fair arguments there. I think that's the real question you guys need to ask - do you want to be part of a federal Europe? Because I believe without federalization the union is doomed anyway.
I think it's a pretty reasonable point to pull out of the Union on personally. I can understand that standpoint.
I'm really quite irritated it's come down to that actually. I was planning on sitting down and working out the pros and cons of staying under the assumption that any serious federalist drive would be kicked into the long grass for the next few decades (in which case, we'd probably get another vote before the done deal).
I suppose I could vote to stay in the hope that if we elect enough negative people to Europe, we can delay things, but that seems somewhat pointless considering the long term.
I don't want to be part of the United States of Europe as it looks to be. The way I see it? If turns into a utopia of lightness and charm in forty years, we can always rejoin later. God only knows that they've shown they'll take any country with a pulse.
So yes, after reading that report, I'm 80% of the way convinced of the 'Vote to Leave' camp.
Da Boss wrote: Do you want to be part of a federal Europe?
For me, this is the primary reason why I am voting leave. I don't hold romantic notions of "Empire", don't hold rabid tendencies when it comes to immigration (my mothers side are wholly Polish immigrants and the arrival of a new wave of Poles 10 years ago saw a boon in the Polish deli's and foods I used to eat We even had relations asking if they could crash for a month or two while they got a job!) and I am not worried about the economy. But federalism scares me. A lot. Federalism is, to me, project fear!
Federalism has been hidden during this whole debate. Even the exit campaign haven't really drilled down into what the EU really wants. But this makes me wonder if the Exit campaign really thinks they can be part of the EU exercise and still remain independent of a federalised structure. They seem to give that message even though the end game is pretty clearly laid out.
The campaign on both sides is pretty woolly.
For me. I am now voting to leave.
Cameron was attempting to mitigate federalism (for the UK) by his negotiations. The results were usable, so long as the EU doesn't set itself to undermine them. I don't fear Federalism so long as it is optional. Nation states, not just the Uk should be allowed to decide their level of integration into the EU on a case basis. Some nations Belgium in particular will want to jump in with both feet, though in every nation the full range of opinion will be present, others such as the UK want just a trade agreement. A bespoke EU is certainly possible and frankly preferable.
I want in but on our terms. In this I do not believe the UK deserves any special privilege other than that we pay our way and have influence according to that input. If Hungary wants to renegotiate, let them. My problem with Federalism is that to some administrators it is a dogma, and a long term goal. A united Europe controlled by them. Sadly Brussels is full of those fethpots.
Martin Shculz the EU parliament president said that Camerons concessions were entirely reversible if the UK stays. This say to me, 'we are Federalists, we will let you have your referendum and your concessions, but in the end you will be either completely out or completely in, and if you are completely in it means Federalism long term.'
Federalism via the back door Federalism via the front door. The only option is to be a holdout. The thing is the UK can be that. Thatcher showed us now.
Cameron has played his hand as well as he can with regards to Federalism. The Out campaign might seem to be not plugging at this, and that to you may be 'woolly'. Frankly I disagree. Cameron has had his time in the sun, and the concessions were successful. He can point to that and assuage a lot of Federalism worries. Instead focus on immigration for now and leave it a month. It's the EU, cracks will appears, masks will slip and the spectre of Federalism will not be far behind. Then in about four weeks time wind down the immigration debate and focus fully on federalism. This way by the time the referendum hits both issues are solidly in the minds of the electorate.
In politics it doesn't help to say too much at once when speaking to the electorate en masse. Stick to one issue for several weeks and move on, it will have sunk in then, and the voter will remember. Don't try to cover too many issues at once, in fact don't even try to cover two issues at once you will lose the voter, except in a one on one debate where you bring them all to the table. Oddly enough this fits the pattern and still has only one issue for the voter to remember: the tally of points scored between the candidates.
Motto: Talk to the voter as if they were intelligent, but treat them like an idiot and they wont disappoint you on ballot day.
The out campaign may not be as haphazard as it appears, though there is some infighting which doesnt help. Overall their electoral politics 101 looks good.
I want in but on our terms. In this I do not believe the UK deserves any special privilege other than that we pay our way and have influence according to that input. .......
But you don't have that option......yet, only an OUT vote will deliver any change.
As it stands;
IN for some weaselly words form all parties then more of the same.
OUT for none of that Federal nonsense and a kick in the arse to the EU that their form of politics is not tolerable.
I don't see the EU pack doing anything other than scaremongering and threats. I saw the German Economy Minister was at it over the weekend spelling doom to the UK and thereby the EU because;
A) German threats always play well in the UK.
B) The EU economy worsening is something new.
There is so little on the table on the IN side that it makes the unknown look positively eden-like.
No disrespect to other people on this thread, but the revelation that the ultimate goal of the EU is a united states of Europe, is hardly a newsflash!
What next? Pope Catholic? Grass green?
I've been taking a keen interest in the political side of Europe since the 90s, and the end game was just as plain then as it is now...
Given that Europe's long history has been plagued by nationalist movements, you would think that the last thing that Europe's elites would do was push for a federal Europe, but here we are...
The EU will rue the day it underestimated nationalism, because any push to a federal structure will unleash forces that may spiral out of control...
We already see a political system in the Western World where people are bitter and disengaged because they feel powerless to influence a political system that is increasingly detached from them.
Taking more power away from people, will ironically, cause the very trouble that a federal Europe is seeking to avoid.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: No disrespect to other people on this thread, but the revelation that the ultimate goal of the EU is a united states of Europe, is hardly a newsflash!
It's more the plain, blunt declaration. The Treaty of Rome never intended federalisation, and the Lisbon treaty amendment was more or less a single word alteration (which could be ignored as appropriate). This Five Presidents agreement goes far beyond that. It lays out, in clear and simple terminology, exactly what five of the main EU political players (possibly THE five) intend to push for. Before, it's always been very specific about the end result (an EU superstate), but very vague about how to get there. Now? There's a timeline. Whilst I doubt it'll go entirely according to plan (there will be kickback, and haggling and retreats), the step by step guide towards the United States of Europe is very clearly laid out for the next five years. That's what's been missing up until now. The specifics.
We all knew the United States of Europe was the end goal. I always envisioned as something of a painful process over the next forty to fifty years though. Following the sort of timescale they're working to, they're after it within ten to fifteen years. Which means it'll probably be twenty to twenty five, but the stage at which we can pull out effectively has been reduced to the next ten year timespan. And we won't get another referendum within the next ten years (whereas we probably would have done in twenty).
So really, in my mind? It's probably now or never. I hope that explains why this is a bigger revelation to me then the one word amendment to the Lisbon treaty.
Did seeing the Five Presidents Report settle your mind for you?
Yes, insomuch as it just reminded me of the ultimate goals of the EU bureaucracy. Something which this current campaign ignores - on both sides. It's easy to be lulled into a false sense of what this referendum is actually about.
I believe that many of the problems currently facing the world are based in Nationalism. It encourages the division of the world into various "us and them" blocs. So yeah, I want to see the breaking down of nation states and the construction of a more egalitarian and transparent federal Europe. I would never state anything else and am not trying to "sneak federalization" in, but it is a major political goal of mine.
I think it's fine if people don't want it, but then I would like them to leave the project because I believe that a multi-speed Europe is doomed to failure.
I do agree that a fierce and fast battle within the EU is needed to better democratize the structures and make things more transparent for all of us. There are movements within Europe for this and I am a fervent supporter. I'm going to attend anti-TTIP rallies for example.
I guess this is the reason for my deep frustration with Cameron and I guess the UK. He had a chance to bring in real reform that people are crying out for, and he could have helped the entire European project. Instead he fiddled around the edges with some populist crap designed to appease a narrow base in his own country. I mistrust his aims and his methods in this entire thing.
I am hoping a shocking vote from the UK will do something to shake our leaders out of their smug complacency with regards to the need for democratic and transparency reform in the EU. Otherwise they will be remembered as the leaders who allowed the most important political achievement in the history of the continent to fall apart.
That's what's been missing up until now. The specifics.
You and I have had many historical discussions these past months on dakka, and you know as well as I do, that in the history of the world, every government and every bureaucracy that has ever been, has always looked to expand, to take more power.
No matter their intentions, for good or for evil, governments and bureaucracies just can't help themselves. They take take take.
Look at the UK. We enter a loose trading block in the 1970s (EEC) and here we are years later talking about a European superstate.
Any student of history will not be surprised at these moves from the EU, hence why I stick to my original point of a European Superstate not being a newsflash to me.
Tony Benn was predicting this back in the 1970s!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I believe that many of the problems currently facing the world are based in Nationalism. It encourages the division of the world into various "us and them" blocs. So yeah, I want to see the breaking down of nation states and the construction of a more egalitarian and transparent federal Europe. I would never state anything else and am not trying to "sneak federalization" in, but it is a major political goal of mine.
I think it's fine if people don't want it, but then I would like them to leave the project because I believe that a multi-speed Europe is doomed to failure.
I do agree that a fierce and fast battle within the EU is needed to better democratize the structures and make things more transparent for all of us. There are movements within Europe for this and I am a fervent supporter. I'm going to attend anti-TTIP rallies for example.
I guess this is the reason for my deep frustration with Cameron and I guess the UK. He had a chance to bring in real reform that people are crying out for, and he could have helped the entire European project. Instead he fiddled around the edges with some populist crap designed to appease a narrow base in his own country. I mistrust his aims and his methods in this entire thing.
I am hoping a shocking vote from the UK will do something to shake our leaders out of their smug complacency with regards to the need for democratic and transparency reform in the EU. Otherwise they will be remembered as the leaders who allowed the most important political achievement in the history of the continent to fall apart.
I may not agree with you, but at least you've been honest about your goals, and I respect that.
Hmm, it's certainly food for thought. Whilst I'm in favour of federalisation of the UK, I'm not quite ready to sign up to a federal union within the EU just yet. I think that would be a very hard sell to the majority of the population of Britain.
It would be very hard to make many British people come around to the idea of joining a federal Europe. There is a reason we have a channel between us and the continent.
r_squared wrote: Hmm, it's certainly food for thought. Whilst I'm in favour of federalisation of the UK, I'm not quite ready to sign up to a federal union within the EU just yet. I think that would be a very hard sell to the majority of the population of Britain.
Federalisation of the UK is a non-starter when one of its constituent parts is 85% of the population, and given England's reluctance to divide into regions for this purpose, the idea will remain as dead as the chicken in this tikka masala ready meal that lies before me!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: It would be very hard to make many British people come around to the idea of joining a federal Europe. There is a reason we have a channel between us and the continent.
Politicians can't even sell the British public a federal Britain, never mind a federal Europe!
I'm still waiting for the House of Lords to be scrapped and a written constitution drawn up, despite the Liberals promising it since the 1910s, so good luck with a federal Britain. The pace of change in this country is ridiculous.
r_squared wrote: Hmm, it's certainly food for thought. Whilst I'm in favour of federalisation of the UK, I'm not quite ready to sign up to a federal union within the EU just yet. I think that would be a very hard sell to the majority of the population of Britain.
Who says the Government will bother to consult us? They didn't consult us on the EU Constitution, and that is the treaty that laid the foundations for European federalization. EU Federalization began years ago.
I doubt we'll ever have a written constitution, there are hundreds of years of laws to be condensed and put together. It would take years of hard work and MPs can even do a few weeks without a holiday.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Disregarding the human rights part, which is obviously the ECHR and not the EU:
In all seriousness. This is why my history tutors hated historical comedies because people would start viewing them as fact......
If the UK falls, Cameron will be booted out and Boris Johnson, a man entirely unburdened by principles, will be PM.
Scotland will leave the Union, which will mean permanent conservative government in the UK.
One little indicator of what will happen: At the moment the EU is pressurising the UK to lower NO2 levels in London. Boris has attempted to postpone the reduction. His only action to reduce levels has been to spray water around the monitoring sites to try and influence the results.
It's estimated that over 9,000 deaths a year in London are caused by NO2 pollution. Leaving the EU will mean this won't fall. This "imposition" by Brussels is the kind of thing Johnson wants freedom from.
So we're debating in our household whether, in the case of Brexit, we should leave London for Berlin or for Edinburgh.
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: If the UK falls, Cameron will be booted out and Boris Johnson, a man entirely unburdened by principles, will be PM.
Scotland will leave the Union, which will mean permanent conservative government in the UK.
One little indicator of what will happen: At the moment the EU is pressurising the UK to lower NO2 levels in London. Boris has attempted to postpone the reduction. His only action to reduce levels has been to spray water around the monitoring sites to try and influence the results.
It's estimated that over 9,000 deaths a year in London are caused by NO2 pollution. Leaving the EU will mean this won't fall. This "imposition" by Brussels is the kind of thing Johnson wants freedom from.
So we're debating in our household whether, in the case of Brexit, we should leave London for Berlin or for Edinburgh.
Well according to the last figures released by the EEA edinburgh is you rbest bet with one green dot of NO2 whilst Berlin has loads of dots including mean dark red ones...which are bad...And I cant find anything relating to German approaches to combating NO2 and other pollutants. Wonder if any german Dakkites can shed some light on the matter.
Well, erm, this was negotiated. If Cameron gets his Remain vote, he'll have the perfect opportunity to test out his emergency brake (and immediately find out it is made of Blancmange)
I mean, is there any practical reason why we would want Gibraltar? Beyond leaving jobless all those unemployed that live thanks to tobacco smuggling I mean.
The Gibraltar issue, much like the spiky walls in Ceuta and Melilla are a great source of hilarity, because if our government (any of them, doesn't matter if its left or right) wasnt so obsessed about "national prestige" and the "indissoluble unity of the kingdom" we would be way better.
But, they are idiots. And it really isn't their fault if most (basically any of them that is over 50) of our politicians were raised under an ultranationalistic dictatorship, they are just rolling with what they know.
But hey, if they do this, and the Brits kick our ass hard enough, a lot of places to enter the army will open, which will help with unemployment.
I'm not really confident about an army that hasnt won any non-civilwar conflict since the Napoleonic wars (well, you could count Morocco, but it was mostly thanks to the French)
I wouldn't worry to much about this, our government does this all the time.
However there is more to it than that. It wasnt well known because it was censored in the press at the time but Blair sold Gibraltar to the Spanish for personal gain, and Spaoin paid, that is the actual root of the current spat. The Daily Mail followed the story back in 2005, the rest of the press did not so it was just written off as 'Daily Fail' lies. This is actually a common enough occurance at the time. I even put out a thread on this here some years ago trying to track the story via the foreign press. Blair was notorious for using tghe Official Secrets act to mask policy, he made more censorship orders in his first term than the entirity of Thatcher and Majors governments put together, despite Thatcher having the Cold War to deal with. I strongly suspected at the time that a censorship order was placed on the Daily Mail also because despite the importance of the story it appeared in one issue and was not repeated even in their own print.
It was not until 2011 and the memoires of a retired Labour minister from the Blair years did I receive any public double sourcing of the story.
The articles do not tally. Peter Hains comments are useful in that they confirm that the negotiationsexist, but downplay them considerably. Nevertheless Blair offered that Spain could 'walk in' to Gibraltar unopposed, while the UK government would use colonial guilt and multi-culturalism as means to browbeat those in the UK who were inflamed or opposed the move. The walk in would occur about 2011-12, and the people of Gibraltar would not be consulted.
The indication I received was that once 'joint sovereignty' was proposed the Gibraltarians would wake up to find Spanish police in the territory operating under Spanish law. It would happen overnight and it would be the beginning of the end. The end result is that the Uk would lose jurisdiction over the territory in stages and the local populace would be powerfless to intervene regardless of their clear wishes on this issue.
In return Spain would back Blairs appointment for EU posts and also support Blair's moves in the EU, which they did so and this allowed Blair to grandstand.
Blair however had to leave office in 2007, and Labour was kicked out of power in 2010. Cameron quite rightly doesn't want to betray the people of Gibraltar and to his credit Brown wouldn't want to either. Selling Gibraltar for personal favours for Blair is not a deal.
Nevertheless while Gibraltar has been an issue for generations it was mostly a sleeping issue, Blair offered Madrid genuine hopes of taking the peninsular, even if in a behind the scenes deal. Blair's secret deal was for the benefit of Tony Blair, nobody else, and the deal dies with his premiership. So I can see those who negotiated with him and backed him in the EU, and their successors, being actively vocal on the issue now. I even have some sympathies, but the fact remains that the Gibraltarians have made their will knwn and any British government with the slightest amount of human decency will respect that.
zedmeister wrote: Well, erm, this was negotiated. If Cameron gets his Remain vote, he'll have the perfect opportunity to test out his emergency brake (and immediately find out it is made of Blancmange)
To be fair the handbrake the UK negotiated for doesn't cover this. Nor should it. The EU can negotiate what it wants with Turkey, no country including the UK should not have a veto to stop them, but any country should be empowered to opt out of the particular agreement.
I despised Blair before this, but my God... I remember hearing about some maneuvers a while back but always assumed that was that other oily bastard Jack Straw. But Blair really does deserve to be vilified for bollocks such as this. For example, we can blame him for the current mess that the House of Lords is in which is pretty much now filled with political placemen. I'll stop there before I go on a colossal rant about his dismantling of various institutions that were more or less working fine, replacing them with heavily politicised quangos and derail things...
In principle, I actually agree with this deal with Turkey (well, besides them extorting us for 6 billion Euros). We have a humanitarian duty to take in genuine refugees of war who go through the proper process and apply for permission, which the people camped out at Calais are not.
No, my issue is that once Turkey gets what it wants, EU membership, its going o IMMEDIATELY break its agreement by opening the borders and flooding Europe with migrants. We cannot trust them.
I despised Blair before this, but my God... I remember hearing about some maneuvers a while back but always assumed that was that other oily bastard Jack Straw. But Blair really does deserve to be vilified for bollocks such as this. For example, we can blame him for the current mess that the House of Lords is in which is pretty much now filled with political placemen. I'll stop there before I go on a colossal rant about his dismantling of various institutions that were more or less working fine, replacing them with heavily politicised quangos and derail things...
B!air is a literal fething traitor.
An illegal war and alleged but unproven war crimes is one thing (and something I already despise him for) but secretly trying to sell out British citizens and hand over their fething home to a foreign government?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: In principle, I actually agree with this deal with Turkey (well, besides them extorting us for 6 billion Euros). We have a humanitarian duty to take in genuine refugees of war who go through the proper process and apply for permission, which the people camped out at Calais are not.
No, my issue is that once Turkey gets what it wants, EU membership, its going o IMMEDIATELY break its agreement by opening the borders and flooding Europe with migrants. We cannot trust them.
I despised Blair before this, but my God... I remember hearing about some maneuvers a while back but always assumed that was that other oily bastard Jack Straw. But Blair really does deserve to be vilified for bollocks such as this. For example, we can blame him for the current mess that the House of Lords is in which is pretty much now filled with political placemen. I'll stop there before I go on a colossal rant about his dismantling of various institutions that were more or less working fine, replacing them with heavily politicised quangos and derail things...
B!air is a literal fething traitor.
An illegal war and alleged but unproven war crimes is one thing (and something I already despise him for) but secretly trying to sell out British citizens and hand over their fething home to a foreign government?
There' no guarantee that Turkey won't send these refugees back again or issue them with visas or passports and point them in the direction of Europe. Corruption is a big problem in Turkey, and has been for a long time. This will get abused.
The EU's handling of the Turkey situation has been nothing short of shambolic. This short term plan, will, in the long term, bring the EU to its knees IMO. Handing out Visas like confetti will lead to a slippery slope.
The EU have already turned a blind eye to the Turkish government cracking down on the press. Expect the same when Turkey declares war on the Kurds.
They won't declare war, they'll just continue the status quo (which is already a de facto state of war) and deny it. If confronted over their bombing of Kurds in Syria and Iraq, Turkey will simply make indignant noises about the need to "combat terrorism".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: They won't declare war, they'll just continue the status quo (which is already a de facto state of war) and deny it. If confronted over their bombing of Kurds in Syria and Iraq, Turkey will simply make indignant noises about the need to "combat terrorism".
On the subject of terrorism, Turkey shares a border with Iraq and Syria, terrorist sneaks into Turkey, bribes an official for a visa into Europe for six months, and...
So much for Cameron's argument that being in the EU makes Britain safer...
Automatically Appended Next Post: One of the most corrupt and authoritarian regimes on earth is now the processing centre for who gets into the EU?
A country that borders nations that contain thousands of ISIL fighters...
This is sheer insanity...beyond parody!
Get me the hell out of this EU before its too late
Cameron doesn't care about keeping Britain safe. In fact he doesn't care about half the things he says. He just cares about his own wealth and the wealth of his friends, many of whom has vested interests in Staying.
He didn't even expect he'd have to keep his election promise for a referendum, because he expected (and wanted) another coalition with the Lib Dems which he would have used as an excuse to drop policies he doesn't like.
In other news, the Daily Mail is saying that it can prove that a No.10 Cameron aide directly intervened with a call to the CBI and pressured them to oust their leader after he publicly backed the Out campaign.
In other news, the Daily Mail is saying that it can prove that a No.10 Cameron aide directly intervened with a call to the CBI and pressured them to oust their leader after he publicly backed the Out campaign.
You mean the British Chamber of Commerce? Wouldn't surprise me especially since Guido Fawkes did some digging and found other senior members who are for Remaining are still in their posts... Dirty tricks is the name of the game here.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Cameron doesn't care about keeping Britain safe. In fact he doesn't care about half the things he says. He just cares about his own wealth and the wealth of his friends, many of whom has vested interests in Staying.
Apparently some French mayor is running his mouth saying in the event of an Out vote France will rip up the UK-France agreement on border controls in Calais, put migrants onto ferries and ship them to the UK.
If in the unlikely event this does happen...couldn't we just turn the ferries back? Deny them permission to dock, leaving the ferries in a limbo, at the expense of the French government? He says they'll use DFDS ferries to ship migrants to Dover, in that case we should blacklist any ferry company that cooperates with this scheme. I don't think this idiot thought it through very well.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently some French mayor is running his mouth saying in the event of an Out vote France will rip up the UK-France agreement on border controls in Calais, put migrants onto ferries and ship them to the UK.
If in the unlikely event this does happen...couldn't we just turn the ferries back? Deny them permission to dock, leaving the ferries in a limbo, at the expense of the French government? He says they'll use DFDS ferries to ship migrants to Dover, in that case we should blacklist any ferry company that cooperates with this scheme. I don't think this idiot thought it through very well.
All we have to do is implement massive fines for every ferry caught with an illegal immigrant on board, and good luck getting the ferry companies to take them.
Just read the paper, apparently only 1/6 people feel as thought they know enough to vote on the referendum, and that a low turnout means Brexit is more likely.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently some French mayor is running his mouth saying in the event of an Out vote France will rip up the UK-France agreement on border controls in Calais, put migrants onto ferries and ship them to the UK.
If in the unlikely event this does happen...couldn't we just turn the ferries back? Deny them permission to dock, leaving the ferries in a limbo, at the expense of the French government? He says they'll use DFDS ferries to ship migrants to Dover, in that case we should blacklist any ferry company that cooperates with this scheme. I don't think this idiot thought it through very well.
I really can't see the legal basis on which France could deliberately ship illegal immigrants from their country to ours. And I just can't believe the way the people and officials in Calais blame Britain for the situation there, when they're illegal immigrants that entered France and are on French soil. Wherever they want to go, the French government should do something about it. Yet apparently it's all our fault!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Apparently some French mayor is running his mouth saying in the event of an Out vote France will rip up the UK-France agreement on border controls in Calais, put migrants onto ferries and ship them to the UK.
If in the unlikely event this does happen...couldn't we just turn the ferries back? Deny them permission to dock, leaving the ferries in a limbo, at the expense of the French government? He says they'll use DFDS ferries to ship migrants to Dover, in that case we should blacklist any ferry company that cooperates with this scheme. I don't think this idiot thought it through very well.
I really can't see the legal basis on which France could deliberately ship illegal immigrants from their country to ours. And I just can't believe the way the people and officials in Calais blame Britain for the situation there, when they're illegal immigrants that entered France and are on French soil. Wherever they want to go, the French government should do something about it. Yet apparently it's all our fault!
Because the French want to pass the buck and the costs of dealing with the problem to someone else.
The EU's handling of the Turkey situation has been nothing short of shambolic. This short term plan, will, in the long term, bring the EU to its knees IMO. Handing out Visas like confetti will lead to a slippery slope.
The EU have already turned a blind eye to the Turkish government cracking down on the press. Expect the same when Turkey declares war on the Kurds.
In this case it's Merkel who is making a pig's breakfast of things again for electoral gains at home. EU officials were aiming for a deal to close the Balkan route and force the Turks to take back non-Syrians from Greece . Her bilateral talks with Turkey sabotaged Tusk's deal and created this monstrosity. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f6c982ec-e54e-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c.html#axzz42DYMI200)
The EU's handling of the Turkey situation has been nothing short of shambolic. This short term plan, will, in the long term, bring the EU to its knees IMO. Handing out Visas like confetti will lead to a slippery slope.
The EU have already turned a blind eye to the Turkish government cracking down on the press. Expect the same when Turkey declares war on the Kurds.
In this case it's Merkel who is making a pig's breakfast of things again for electoral gains at home. EU officials were aiming for a deal to close the Balkan route and force the Turks to take back non-Syrians from Greece . Her bilateral talks with Turkey sabotaged Tusk's deal and created this monstrosity. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f6c982ec-e54e-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c.html#axzz42DYMI200)
Would you mind quoting the article or at the very least summarizing it for those of us who don't have a subscription?
The EU's handling of the Turkey situation has been nothing short of shambolic. This short term plan, will, in the long term, bring the EU to its knees IMO. Handing out Visas like confetti will lead to a slippery slope.
The EU have already turned a blind eye to the Turkish government cracking down on the press. Expect the same when Turkey declares war on the Kurds.
In this case it's Merkel who is making a pig's breakfast of things again for electoral gains at home. EU officials were aiming for a deal to close the Balkan route and force the Turks to take back non-Syrians from Greece . Her bilateral talks with Turkey sabotaged Tusk's deal and created this monstrosity. (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f6c982ec-e54e-11e5-ac45-5c039e797d1c.html#axzz42DYMI200)
Would you mind quoting the article or at the very least summarizing it for those of us who don't have a subscription?
Sure, the key points are quoted just below.
Spoiler:
“Behind the backs of some her closest European allies, Angela Merkel, German chancellor, struck a deal with her Turkish counterpart that could very well end the influx of refugees washing up on Europe’s shores — but at a very high price, including an extra €3bn in aid and a visa-free travel scheme.”
“On Sunday afternoon EU ambassadors in Brussels put the final touches to a summit deal that Donald Tusk, European Council president, saw as a turning point. The western Balkan migration route would be closing and Turkey had agreed to take back non-Syrian migrants. Europe’s tougher approach was taking shape.”
“Unlike Mr Tusk’s version, [Merkels’s version] came with a higher Turkish pricetag: money, visas, and large-scale resettlement of Syrians from Turkey to Europe. Ms Merkel’s bet was that the deal’s arresting potential would help her at home in state elections next week."
“The EU institutions that have spearheaded membership talks with Turkey for two decades felt badly undercut. One senior European diplomat directly involved in Turkey discussions said they had “never seen a situation where the EU institutions were so undermined and stabbed in the back”
“For weeks, Mr Tusk has been pushing an Austria-backed plan to “close” the western Balkan route, a scheme that centred on sealing Greece’s border with Macedonia and convincing countries to the north to stop “waving through” economic migrants.”
“Ms Merkel had fought the plan, largely for symbolic reasons: she has resisted domestic pressure to cap migrant arrivals and has been engaged in a bitter political war with Werner Faymann, the Austrian chancellor who has repeatedly suggested Ms Merkel would follow his lead.”
Hahaha, at this rate we won't need a referendum. Merkel will cause a crisis that unravels the whole thing before then
I know a load of Balkan and central Europe states are closing off borders and are thoroughly fecked off with the current mess. This unilateral "deal" will have gone down like a cup of cold sick
Wait, WHAT?? Merkel WANTS to continue flooding Europe with migrants?
Merkel stabbing the rest of Europe in the back and making her own deal with Turkey...does she expect the rest of Europe to fall in line? What if a member state objects?
So, up until someone brought up the Daily Mail, we seemed to be half way near a reasoned discussion.
Then all of a sudden everyone is talking bollocks.
No surprise there then, that toilet paper of a rag is scientifically proven to lower the IQ of people reading it, those in the vicinity of those reading it, those who quote it on the internet, and the poor buggers who glance at a link to a web page that links to that utter gak fest.
It is absolutely guaranteed that anything that is printed in that paper, including the TV listings is utter toss. I wouldn't trust it to be able to wipe the gak from my clagnuts.
r_squared wrote: So, up until someone brought up the Daily Mail, we seemed to be half way near a reasoned discussion.
Then all of a sudden everyone is talking bollocks.
No surprise there then, that toilet paper of a rag is scientifically proven to lower the IQ of people reading it, those in the vicinity of those reading it, those who quote it on the internet, and the poor buggers who glance at a link to a web page that links to that utter gak fest.
It is absolutely guaranteed that anything that is printed in that paper, including the TV listings is utter toss. I wouldn't trust it to be able to wipe the gak from my clagnuts.
Anyway, you were saying?
Actually...we're talking about the Financial Times. The last Daily Mail link was ages ago, halfway down page page 24 by Orlanth, and that article was by Peter Hitchens, a very knowledgeable and extremely well traveled foreign correspondent who you'd do well to heed, if you could just get past your partisan bias. The rest of the links on page 24 were all Daily Express and Financial Times.
And also...I would say the same about The Guardian.
The Financial Times? and that didn't wipe the drool from the chins of the enlightened?
Well feth me.
and as for Partisan bias, there's plenty of that going on here, and it isn't coming from my posts. Apart from about the Daily Mail, because that rag is gak. And anyone who reads it, or quotes from it is a fething idiot, who should have metal tools taken away from them.
r_squared wrote: So, up until someone brought up the Daily Mail, we seemed to be half way near a reasoned discussion.
Then all of a sudden everyone is talking bollocks.
No surprise there then, that toilet paper of a rag is scientifically proven to lower the IQ of people reading it, those in the vicinity of those reading it, those who quote it on the internet, and the poor buggers who glance at a link to a web page that links to that utter gak fest.
It is absolutely guaranteed that anything that is printed in that paper, including the TV listings is utter toss. I wouldn't trust it to be able to wipe the gak from my clagnuts.
Anyway, you were saying?
I'll be frank, that Five President's Report seems to have swung more or less every undecided voter who's read it so far in this thread. And along with myself, four other undecideds I've chatted to about it now have moved to voting 'Leave'. Vitriol from Spain and France aside, it would take a considerable revelation to shift my opinion back to undecided again.
It does make me worry for the future though. I suspect our country will take an economic hit if we do leave, and I don't look forward to the inevitable recession. I fear we may be in for a bleak few years immediately following.
r_squared wrote: So, up until someone brought up the Daily Mail, we seemed to be half way near a reasoned discussion.
Then all of a sudden everyone is talking bollocks.
No surprise there then, that toilet paper of a rag is scientifically proven to lower the IQ of people reading it, those in the vicinity of those reading it, those who quote it on the internet, and the poor buggers who glance at a link to a web page that links to that utter gak fest.
It is absolutely guaranteed that anything that is printed in that paper, including the TV listings is utter toss. I wouldn't trust it to be able to wipe the gak from my clagnuts.
Anyway, you were saying?
I'll be frank, that Five President's Report seems to have swung more or less every undecided voter who's read it so far in this thread. And along with myself, four other undecideds I've chatted to about it now have moved to voting 'Leave'. Vitriol from Spain and France aside, it would take a considerable revelation to shift my opinion back to undecided again.
It does make me worry for the future though. I suspect our country will take an economic hit if we do leave, and I don't look forward to the inevitable recession. I fear we may be in for a bleak few years immediately following.
Europe is going to shaft us regardless of the result.
Buckingham Palace has moved to deny claims the Queen is backing Brexit Monarch, 89, said to have aired Eurosceptic views to Nick Clegg at a lunch Source told The Sun pro-EU then deputy PM was reprimanded by Queen Mr Clegg last night said he had ‘no recollection’ of such a conversation
Clegg is clearly lying. That is not the sort of thing you would forget.
And yes R_squared, its a Daily Mail article. Cry me a river.
That's a lovely gift to Brexit. One can imagine that the telephones in Buckingham Palace will be ringing incessantly this morning with PR shills and other lowlifes desperately trying to get a statement or even turn the Queen into a Remain tool. With any luck, the Palace will be silent. Though, Charlie probably won't be able to keep his gob shut.
Apparently even the Corgis and dear old Winston Churchill want out. Diana told the mail in an exclusive interview with Marjorie Potts, 68 of Hove.
"She came to me last night, clear as you standing there. I'd just had me neck medicine when the Queen of Hearts told me that Winnie and her had a message for Mr Cameron."
r_squared wrote: Just look at its source, the Daily fething Mail.
Apparently even the Corgis and dear old Winston Churchill want out. Diana told the mail in an exclusive interview with Marjorie Potts, 68 of Hove.
"She came to me last night, clear as you standing there. I'd just had me neck medicine when the Queen of Hearts told me that Winnie and her had a message for Mr Cameron."
Made me drop me sherry it did.
Your bias is showing. If you actually read the article, you'll see the source is actually the Sun.
I dislike the Daily Mail. It is sensational and hypocritical. But, the Daily Mail does have decent columnists that are worth a read. The aforementioned Peter Hitchens as well as Peter Oborne for example. Don't discount the story because you disagree with the publishing company.
r_squared wrote: ... Apart from about the Daily Mail, because that rag is gak. And anyone who reads it, or quotes from it is a fething idiot, who should have metal tools taken away from them.
I say the same about anyone coming from or living in the cess pit that is Boston. You lot cant even be trusted to get to the top of the stump! Your 'skilled' agri workers come from eastern Europe AND are shipped in form that other gak hole Worksop!
See, its fun to cast aspersions.
The Daily Mail is a font of regurgitated nonsense but it often hits close to the bone when other media fails to either cover stories or take the establishment line.
It does make me worry for the future though. I suspect our country will take an economic hit if we do leave, and I don't look forward to the inevitable recession. I fear we may be in for a bleak few years immediately following.
Quite.
Despite all the shouting and all too often ludicrous nationalistic statements I'd like some actual answers or plans as to what we'll actually do.
We've got something like 2 Million citizens living/working in the EU.
What is the plan for them ?
I've got friends in Germany -- other than contributors in this thread -- and of those 2 have been told that if we leave they will lose their jobs.
They'll also be, presumably, unable to claim benefits and will have to return home.
If this is repeated to any scale..... what do we do ?
If we're incredibly generous and say that 90% of people affected either take other citizenship -- some of my friends in Germany are looking into this -- or manage to work around, what are we going to do with the 200,000 people will be deported or returning home ?
The following has been doing the rounds on various sites --
Spoiler:
In laymans terms:
"But Germany, France and Italy won't stop buying things from the UK if we leave" say the brexiteers, they NEED us, and they won't put us into a tariff regime, so says the Leave EU camp.
It won't be a choice, it's not a case of the EU damaging their imports to be spiteful to a UK that just voted to leave the EU. The fact is that there exists a document called the Treaty of the European Union and it sets out the very foundation of how the 28 member states work and cooperate together. It was part written by the UK and part drafted by UK lawyers.
It was agreed by all Member States that the EU would create a 'thing' called the "EU Common External Tariff Regime" for countries outside the EU that wanted to to trade with EU businesses. Different tariffs are in place for different product types. Higher for products the EU doesn't desperately need and lower for the things it does need desperately like energy for example - which explains why Norway get such a good deal as around half of Norways exports to the EU is oil and gas.
When we tear up our membership card, Article 50 of the Treaty I mentioned comes into force. It says that a country that notifies the EU we are leaving the club all our agreements terminate 24 months after notification. When this happens (potentially summer 2018) we are automatically under the external tariff regime that the UK helped to draft and fully signed up to.
The ONLY way this could be changed is if the Treaty is changed. This requires the agreement of all remaining 27 countries. Many of whom have a referendum lock if there are any changes to the Treaty. It just isn't feasibly possible to have all the necessary referendums and treaty change agreed by heads of state of 27 nations across Europe in the 2 year time limit.
Meanwhile we could continue to renegotiate the 4,500 plus different product groups that we trade with the EU to try and get lower tariffs on the things we buy and sell. This could take as much as a decade (or longer if other trade negotiations are any guide).
The point is that the UK becoming a part of the EU Tariff Regime (which meets WTO guidelines) is automatic if we elect to Leave and there is nothing that Germany, France or Spain or even the UK can do about it.
Currently we enjoy unlimited trade with the largest trading bloc on the planet free from duties, tariffs or quota and that is my main reason for voting to stay IN the EU.
It's also worth noting that of all the top ten economies in the world every single one of them with a population of less than one billion people is a member of a continental trade bloc like the EU. Do we really think we are powerful enough to buck the trend of global trade and international economics? I think not. We are pretty good, but not *that* good.
p.s. You won't find this information in the Fact Free Zone that is the Leave EU campaign, but fact check any of the above if you so wish.
Now, obviously, none of that is or would be insurmountable and of course sometimes you have to take a hit, so to speak, to do what's worthwhile.
Or indeed one could argue that if something is the right thing to do then it should be done regardless of the cost.
But I'd really like to hear from the Brexit group what the actual plans for this will be.
I'm also somewhat dubious about what would happen to pension plans in the Uk, as if we left -- presumably... ? -- we'd no longer be protected by the legislation pushed through in the last few years
and I don't really trust the UK govt. -- of any of the parties -- with regards to protecting people's investments. they are all fat too susceptible to ....."persuasion" ..... by the big banks and investment companies.
Liz was quite happy to be used as a stooge for the Better Together campaign, so the idea that the Queen is, or should remain neutral, is complete horsegak.
I've made my position clear these past months: an independent Scotland that is out of the UK and out of the EU, is what I'm after.
BUT
To see the BREXIT campaign squeal about media bias,number 10 putting pressure on business leaders to declare for IN, and moaning about project fear, well, these very same people were happy to do it to Scotland in 2014.
Suck it up, and let me enjoy a double serving Schadenfreude!
I've got friends in Germany -- other than contributors in this thread -- and of those 2 have been told that if we leave they will lose their jobs.
They were told that? Directly, by their management? On what grounds would they be sacked? No valid visas? Not eligible to work? Business pulling out? Something else?
The following has been doing the rounds on various sites --
All generally true, but the last line does show its bias somewhat. Though it doesn't touch on the fact that the UK imports from the EU more than it exports to the EU. And that gives us a position of strength should new treaty discussions take place. Finally, what prevents from adopting something similar to the Swiss or Norwegian model?
I'm also somewhat dubious about what would happen to pension plans in the Uk, as if we left -- presumably... ? -- we'd no longer be protected by the legislation pushed through in the last few years
and I don't really trust the UK govt. -- of any of the parties -- with regards to protecting people's investments. they are all fat too susceptible to ....."persuasion" ..... by the big banks and investment companies.
Carry on as they are? Despite Brown doing his best to feth up pensions, we are quite good at them actually. And who says all laws will be repealed? You just need to consider that the Conservatives core vote are older and a lot are pensioners. I can't see them risking upsetting their core vote by trashing or risking they're core vote's income. But, I think that leads into your point about lack of information.
Though, as has been mentioned already, the Five Presidents Report shows exactly the true direction of where we are heading and the main reason why I am voting Leave. Economy and Immigration are the big arguments, but at the end of the day it all boils down to this one simple question: Do you want to be a part of the United States of Europe? Yes? Vote Remain. No? Vote leave. And, I'll ask this question to those that think we still have a shot at reforming and maintaining distance: How successful have we been so far and do you think we'll ever have a strong enough leader to resist?
Finally, on your point about lack of trust and I strain to point out that this is not a dig at yourself. This is more me railing and ranting at faceless commentators. I'm always tripping over comments along the lines of (and I genericise them somewhat): "I hate our government, they're so undemocratic, we need the EU to step in" or "This new x law is stupid, the EU will save us" and it riles me up. The UK Gov gets things wrong, for sure, and a healthy amount of distrust should be used when dealing with them (or any government really), but we are incredibly lucky and fortunate with our society. This griping and grumbling at how bad things are here and how the UK has gone to the dogs, etc winds me up.
I learned a new word the other day that seems to fit and describe this mindset. I stumbled upon a few quotes from Roger Scruton amongst others which lead me to it. Oikophobia. The utter derision and hate for our national institutions and way of life. Oikophobia can be seen to the be the opposite of Xenophobia. So, I agree that too much nationalism is bad and leads to a kind of Xenophobia, too little and you end up with Oikophobia.
So, what's my point? None really, I just wanted to rant! And generally I'm sick of the look on peoples faces when I tell them that, for example, we're the 5th largest manufacturer globally (which happened the other day, again). Err, anyway, rant and thread derailment attempt over.
They were told that? Directly, by their management? On what grounds would they be sacked? No valid visas? Not eligible to work? Business pulling out? Something else?
Yes. Yes.
Employment eligibility issues for some -- indeed no visa/equivalent. One works for ..err the.... Justice ministry ...? .. or something, mainly doing translations ----- and she is very talented with her tongue -- she'd have to go as they travel/work quite a bit in the EU zone and it would be a royal PITA to sort out all the different visas.
Apparently.
TBF one FOAF who works for an anti EU wonktank has said he'll quit on principal if we stay
All generally true, but the last line does show its bias somewhat. Though it doesn't touch on the fact that the UK imports from the EU more than it exports to the EU. And that gives us a position of strength should new treaty discussions take place. Finally, what prevents from adopting something similar to the Swiss or Norwegian model?
Indeed.
However a lot of the things we export we also import bits of/ingredient for first, geography/resources being a bit against us here.
Carry on as they are? Despite Brown doing his best to feth up pensions, we are quite good at them actually. And who says all laws will be repealed? You just need to consider that the Conservatives core vote are older and a lot are pensioners. I can't see them risking upsetting their core vote by trashing or risking they're core vote's income. But, I think that leads into your point about lack of information.
Given the continued mismanagement of pensions by Osborne -- note the other changes have been delayed just as this all started -- I have as much faith in him here as in Brown or indeed any of their predecessors.
But indeed .. what is the plan ?
welshhoppo wrote: The Daily Mail does have a reputation for being a bit of a right wing tabloid paper with poor editing skills, but it very rarely outright lies.
Really? I remember them calling him a massive communist that despised his adopted country along with a load of choice quotes to back it up. Now, this being the daily mail it was no doubt laced with sensationalism, but they were never forced to retract or called to account for lying. Though, watching Ed whinge and whine about the story was amusing but that supported Labours "attack the press" strategy at the time.
reds8n wrote: she'd have to go as they travel/work quite a bit in the EU zone and it would be a royal PITA to sort out all the different visas.
Shengen area requires only a single Shengen visa to move about inside it IIRC (I have much non-EU family members), so that sounds of dubious provenance.
Really? I remember them calling him a massive communist that despised his adopted country along with a load of choice quotes to back it up. Now, this being the daily mail it was no doubt laced with sensationalism, but they were never forced to retract or called to account for lying. Though, watching Ed whinge and whine about the story was amusing but that supported Labours "attack the press" strategy at the time.
They called a person who had to flee Nazi Germany and who joined the Royal Navy and was a part of Operation Overlord someone who hated the UK.
Consider that at the time that Milliband was fleeing Nazi Germany to avoid being beaten up and stuffed into a ghetto the Daily Mail was writing articles praising Hitler and fascist groups like the National Front. Who are the ones who really hated Britain and what it stood for?
Also, Milliband may have been a communist (or, more accurately, a socialist) but he was not a Stalinist. Would you say that Orwell hated the country because of his political views? Probably not.
Also, interpreting a diary entry written by a 17 year old boy as evidence that the grown man hated the country he lived in for the rest of his life? That is pure idiocy.
Buckingham Palace has moved to deny claims the Queen is backing Brexit Monarch, 89, said to have aired Eurosceptic views to Nick Clegg at a lunch Source told The Sun pro-EU then deputy PM was reprimanded by Queen Mr Clegg last night said he had ‘no recollection’ of such a conversation
Clegg is clearly lying. That is not the sort of thing you would forget.
And yes R_squared, its a Daily Mail article. Cry me a river.
I'm trying to get around the logic of your post. "A Source" tells The Sun that something happened. Both people that supposedly were involved in this happening deny it having happened, and this is somehow evidence that they're both lying rather than "A Source"?
Let alone the logic that "I don't recall that happening" doesn't work because he'd obviously remember it, so he's obviously lying. It can't be that it didn't happen and that's why he doesn't remember it, it's obviously that he's pretending that he can't remember.
A Town Called Malus wrote: They called a person who had to flee Nazi Germany and who joined the Royal Navy and was a part of Operation Overlord someone who hated the UK.
Consider that at the time that Milliband was fleeing Nazi Germany to avoid being beaten up and stuffed into a ghetto the Daily Mail was writing articles praising Hitler and fascist groups like the National Front. Who are the ones who really hated Britain and what it stood for?
Also, Milliband may have been a communist (or, more accurately, a socialist) but he was not a Stalinist. Would you say that Orwell hated the country because of his political views? Probably not.
Oh, I agree the article was in very poor taste and sensational, but they didn't fabricate his quotes and missed a shed load of points (for example, his total resistance to any form of military intervention or action regardless of its aims).
As to the slight strawman on what the Daily Mail did during the war, I'll say this: yes it was abhorrent, but the people who ran the stories and editorial direction in those times are most likely long dead. But avoiding an entity because of something a bunch of people did years ago seems a bit nonsensical. For example, do you avoid the likes of Bayer, Hugo Boss or VW because of what they did during the war?
Edit: You git, somehow, I've defended the Daily Mail
Liz was quite happy to be used as a stooge for the Better Together campaign, so the idea that the Queen is, or should remain neutral, is complete horsegak.
You realise that there is actually a fair amount of difference between these two situations, right? With regards to Scotland, it was about Scotland leaving the thing that she is Queen of, which I imagine she would have more of a personal stake in. In the EU referendum then she won' have as much of a stake, because it's not as if she's queen of the EU.
number 10 putting pressure on business leaders to declare for IN
Have you considered that the business leaders decided upon their opinion without direction from No. 10? I mean, there's quite a lot of them come out in support of staying, I'd imagine that if there was some overarching conspiracy from David Cameron then it would have come to light, no?
reds8n wrote: she'd have to go as they travel/work quite a bit in the EU zone and it would be a royal PITA to sort out all the different visas.
Shengen area requires only a single Shengen visa to move about inside it IIRC (I have much non-EU family members), so that sounds of dubious provenance.
Quite possibly.
Will that still apply ?
Will she be allowed to keep/use her current passport ?
Or will she have to get a new one ?
And how long will that take ?
They plan some of their trips 3-4 months in advance due to all the hotels, trains etc etc .
the people who ran the stories and editorial direction in those times are most likely long de
Liz was quite happy to be used as a stooge for the Better Together campaign, so the idea that the Queen is, or should remain neutral, is complete horsegak.
More hysteria. The palace has denied any Brexit comments from Her Majesty. The person who the comments were allegedly made to cant recall them either. Its just a rumour.
As for Her Majesty and the Scottish referendum all she said was that Scots should 'think carefully before voting'. Thats a neutral comment. If Yes Scotland voters believe it is an alarm call directed at them then it only shows their own insecurity. Of course iScotland would be a venture fraught with danger, but that is not Her Majesty's fault or loads her comments, its just a reasonable assumption based on Salmond's wild and unworkable promises, that every No voter knew and most Yes voters suspected in the back of their minds.
To see the BREXIT campaign squeal about media bias,number 10 putting pressure on business leaders to declare for IN, and moaning about project fear, well, these very same people were happy to do it to Scotland in 2014.
Project Fear is now a political watchword used by both sides. I wish it wasnt because there was no Project Fear in the Scottish referendum, it was a propaganda slogan to attach to those commentators who told the truth regarding the SNP's lies and wild promises in the referendum.
Now we have both sides saying In and Out are bad for the economy. There is a lot of project Fear going on because we dont know for sure.
However iScotland not getting fast tracked into the EU, or Scotland not getting currency union, those were 'Project Fear' they were Project Tell the Truth.
Besides the SNP are walking into a trap right now today that can be used against them. I wonder if you can spot it.
r_squared wrote: Just look at its source, the Daily fething Mail.
Apparently even the Corgis and dear old Winston Churchill want out. Diana told the mail in an exclusive interview with Marjorie Potts, 68 of Hove.
"She came to me last night, clear as you standing there. I'd just had me neck medicine when the Queen of Hearts told me that Winnie and her had a message for Mr Cameron."
Made me drop me sherry it did.
Your bias is showing. If you actually read the article, you'll see the source is actually the Sun.
I dislike the Daily Mail. It is sensational and hypocritical. But, the Daily Mail does have decent columnists that are worth a read. The aforementioned Peter Hitchens as well as Peter Oborne for example. Don't discount the story because you disagree with the publishing company.
I read it for Peter Hitchens, and because its the paper I grew up reading. My dad would buy it weekly, and I'd always nick it. Yes its a tabloid. Yes its sensational. I've never pretended otherwise. Do I give a feth?
Lot of papers are tabloids and lots of them are just as "bad", especially ones that could be considered " left wing". And quite often, the Mails most vitriolic haters and critics are simply people with an opposing political leaning I.e. Labour. Newspapers are just as tribal as political parties.
Buckingham Palace has moved to deny claims the Queen is backing Brexit
Monarch, 89, said to have aired Eurosceptic views to Nick Clegg at a lunch
Source told The Sun pro-EU then deputy PM was reprimanded by Queen
Mr Clegg last night said he had ‘no recollection’ of such a conversation
Clegg is clearly lying. That is not the sort of thing you would forget.
And yes R_squared, its a Daily Mail article. Cry me a river.
I'm trying to get around the logic of your post. "A Source" tells The Sun that something happened. Both people that supposedly were involved in this happening deny it having happened, and this is somehow evidence that they're both lying rather than "A Source"?
Let alone the logic that "I don't recall that happening" doesn't work because he'd obviously remember it, so he's obviously lying. It can't be that it didn't happen and that's why he doesn't remember it, it's obviously that he's pretending that he can't remember.
Its a non denial denial. He used weasel words, he doesn't want to admit to it but stopped short of an outright emphatic denial ("It never happened") so if in future it does prove to be true, he can't be accused of having lied ("I didn't lie, I just didn't remember it"). Its not the sort of thing anybody would forget, when the monarch of your country confides her view to you, the deputy prime minister, on the political future of your country.
If it never happened, why not deny it outright? Call me cynical, but politicians do this all the time.
r_squared wrote: Just look at its source, the Daily fething Mail.
Apparently even the Corgis and dear old Winston Churchill want out. Diana told the mail in an exclusive interview with Marjorie Potts, 68 of Hove.
"She came to me last night, clear as you standing there. I'd just had me neck medicine when the Queen of Hearts told me that Winnie and her had a message for Mr Cameron."
Made me drop me sherry it did.
Your bias is showing. If you actually read the article, you'll see the source is actually the Sun.
I dislike the Daily Mail. It is sensational and hypocritical. But, the Daily Mail does have decent columnists that are worth a read. The aforementioned Peter Hitchens as well as Peter Oborne for example. Don't discount the story because you disagree with the publishing company.
I read it for Peter Hitchens, and because its the paper I grew up reading. My dad would buy it weekly, and I'd always nick it. Yes its a tabloid. Yes its sensational. I've never pretended otherwise. Do I give a feth?
Lot of papers are tabloids and lots of them are just as "bad", especially ones that could be considered " left wing". And quite often, the Mails most vitriolic haters and critics are simply people with an opposing political leaning I.e. Labour. Newspapers are just as tribal as political parties.
Pretty much all the press is sensationalist, the broadsheets just use longer words.
Daily Mail gets the rep because it prints about issues the rest of the press would rather ignore. Other newspapers are just as extreme, but its dangerous to gun for the Sun or Mirror and the Guardian so had immunity in the last decade and has the self appointed powers of the progressive left to point the finger and scream bigotry at every turn and claim to a moral high ground that is above reproach by doing so.
Buckingham Palace has moved to deny claims the Queen is backing Brexit
Monarch, 89, said to have aired Eurosceptic views to Nick Clegg at a lunch
Source told The Sun pro-EU then deputy PM was reprimanded by Queen
Mr Clegg last night said he had ‘no recollection’ of such a conversation
Clegg is clearly lying. That is not the sort of thing you would forget.
And yes R_squared, its a Daily Mail article. Cry me a river.
I'm trying to get around the logic of your post. "A Source" tells The Sun that something happened. Both people that supposedly were involved in this happening deny it having happened, and this is somehow evidence that they're both lying rather than "A Source"?
Let alone the logic that "I don't recall that happening" doesn't work because he'd obviously remember it, so he's obviously lying. It can't be that it didn't happen and that's why he doesn't remember it, it's obviously that he's pretending that he can't remember.
Its a non denial denial. He used weasel words, he doesn't want to admit to it but stopped short of an outright emphatic denial ("It never happened") so if in future it does prove to be true, he can't be accused of having lied ("I didn't lie, I just didn't remember it"). Its not the sort of thing anybody would forget, when the monarch of your country confides her view to you, the deputy prime minister, on the political future of your country.
If it never happened, why not deny it outright? Call me cynical, but politicians do this all the time.
And of course the Palace is going to deny it.
The Palace has done more than deny it, they have complained, and are right to do so.
Clegg is not 'clearly lying', unlike you and I Clegg met the Queen regularly, can you remember every word you spoke to your supervisor at work or equivalent? Likely not. These people cover a lot of issues and have busy lives.
Besides let us assume for a moment that the Queen made 'eurosceptic' comments in 2011, that means feth all for the Sun to claim.
I am voting In not Out yet I have had plenty of eurosceptic things to say on this thread, let alone 2011. There is no story, but try telling that to the Sun.
If Clegg said that grass was green, I'd be on my front lawn double-checking!
So, have you got many examples of him actually explicitly lying? Because I can't actually think of many times where he's actually been proven to have lied about things.
The student loans debacle is infuriating, but I don't blame that on Clegg lying so much as his lack of spine and a Tory willingness to feth over anyone and everyone that isn't themselves.
I personally wouldn't mind if the UK left, my income is in dollars so a complete collapse of our currency/ economy would be fine with me.
The past 5-6 years of economic policy has all been about desperately avoiding the UK's critical need to hit the reset button, crash the currency and rebuild from there. Pound has lost 20% of its value over the past few months simply over the *possibility* that we might leave.
House prices cut in half and Interest rates up to 15-20%, just like the early 90's, we came out of that stronger than ever until we decided that the entire economy could be built on using houses as poker chips.
Boom and bust always happens, we avoided the bust in 2008-2010 by throwing massive amounts of government debt at it, and from 2010-2016 by massive cuts in public spending. Not much left to trim before the nuclear option is the only one left.
By doing it this way the government gets to avoid responsibility as it's a referendum decision. Very clever.
I'm guessing the point of that article is to give brexit a semi? Now the boobs have gone, you've still got to give the punters a twitch somehow.
It's not even pretending to be journalism. Theres not the vaguest attempt to do anything other than give Boris Johnson's boys a little tickle.
I met Lizzie a couple of years ago, and she said so herself, fact.
Watch out, the left wing bastion the BBC supports totally unfounded claims that the Canadian governor of the bank of England mentioned the EU. The nosey foreign bounder.
Obviously the sources are lies, if you read the Sun or daily mail. Watch out for big words fellas.
There are no boobs to be found anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: Mate, when I last had a gossip with her, she had some crackers to tell about you.
Ask her about my engorged left plum, she fething loves that story.
If Clegg said that grass was green, I'd be on my front lawn double-checking!
So, have you got many examples of him actually explicitly lying? Because I can't actually think of many times where he's actually been proven to have lied about things.
The student loans debacle is infuriating, but I don't blame that on Clegg lying so much as his lack of spine and a Tory willingness to feth over anyone and everyone that isn't themselves.
I thought Nick Clegg was OK, and didn't hold the student loans thing against him at all. It was a manifesto pledge for the Lib Dems if they got elected. They weren't elected. They formed a really tiny minority of a coalition government, and as such there was no way they were going to get all their proposed policies into effect.
Of course, my student days are well in the past, so it didn't affect me directly.
Crispy78 wrote: I thought Nick Clegg was OK, and didn't hold the student loans thing against him at all. It was a manifesto pledge for the Lib Dems if they got elected. They weren't elected. They formed a really tiny minority of a coalition government, and as such there was no way they were going to get all their proposed policies into effect.
Of course, my student days are well in the past, so it didn't affect me directly.
The problem was that they essentially killed the majority of their base of support; the student vote. Rather than ensuring that they stayed a viable party to hopefully later then enact real change as a more major force having campaigned on all the good stuff they did, they sacrificed themselves too early on a poorly thought out and presented campaign to change the way that voting works - which ultimately would have been massively beneficial, but was not really what the public wanted at the time.
Even with that blunder they could have clawed back some votes simply by demonstrating how much they held back the excesses of the Conservative party during their time in power.
If Clegg said that grass was green, I'd be on my front lawn double-checking!
So, have you got many examples of him actually explicitly lying? Because I can't actually think of many times where he's actually been proven to have lied about things.
The student loans debacle is infuriating, but I don't blame that on Clegg lying so much as his lack of spine and a Tory willingness to feth over anyone and everyone that isn't themselves.
I thought Nick Clegg was OK, and didn't hold the student loans thing against him at all. It was a manifesto pledge for the Lib Dems if they got elected. They weren't elected. They formed a really tiny minority of a coalition government, and as such there was no way they were going to get all their proposed policies into effect.
Of course, my student days are well in the past, so it didn't affect me directly.
If I'm perfectly honest, so did I. He at least provided somewhat of a moderating influence on the excesses of the Tories.
I mean, I'm one of the few people posting here that actually got affected by the tuition fee increase, to the point that I'm going to be paying about £25,000 more than I otherwise would have, and even then I hold the Tories more responsible than I do Clegg. The Lib Dems have been punished for the actions of the Tories, meanwhile George Osborne gets to carry on his idealogical financial crusade against people without the magical bootstrapping ability to inherit millions of pounds.
Yeah. I was sorry to see the Lib Dems get such a clobbering in the last election. I thought they did a decent job in the coalition, to the point that I actually voted Lib Dem for the first time in 2015. Ah well.
I graduated in 2000, so I came through after grants but before tuition fees.
It's the norm for coalitions - if the smaller party doesn't play it very carefully and cleverly, they tend to get absolutely hammered by their base.
The Lib Dems sacrificed on the wrong things in the end, and lost out because the Tories were better at politics. Same thing happened to the Irish Labour Party in our election a couple of weeks ago.
It's pretty unfair alright. But I think a "traitor" will always be despised more than an enemy you knew was going to feth with you all along.
welshhoppo wrote: The Daily Mail does have a reputation for being a bit of a right wing tabloid paper with poor editing skills, but it very rarely outright lies.
You've got this wrong.
It's a well-edited, and a journalistically often brilliant newspaper, Paul Dacre is an evil genus, but lying is an intrinsic part of their remit.
They asked me to co-operate with something on my day job; in essence, they wanted to print an article with my name on it. I asked for details, and it turned out they wanted their journalist to write the article - and misrepresent my work, which debunked a particular allegation, by repeating the story.
I said no thanks. They ran the article anyway, making silly allegations which I had debunked with the aid of people who were there at the time.
Sound familiar?
THe Queen Backs Brexit story is in The Sun, and in fact it's obviously claptrap. The Queen might well have complained about the EU. Even people who support the EU, like me, complain about it. She quite manifestly didn't back Brexit - because the concept of Brexit didn't even exist at the time. The story, or more specifically the headline, is laughable.
The Lib-Dems are the biggest waste on space ever inflicted on the British public in modern times.
Lackeys, lickspittles, charlatans that abandoned their principals at the first whiff of power.
Clegg apologists have always cited the need for a unity government at a time of economic woe. This is complete horsegak!
If the Lib-Dems were really serious about acting in the national interest, they would have voted with the Tories on a vote by vote basis e.g. getting budget through parliament to prevent the economic situation from getting worse.
Instead, they embraced the Tory party, and ended up becoming apologists for some of the worst excesses of the Tories between 2010-15.
Regarding the EU, Clegg's made no secret of wanting to finish his career working in Brussels for whatever EU quango will take him - at our expensive of course.
He is campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU, not out of some lofty principals, but of naked self-interest. That is why I despise the man!
The Lib-Dems are the biggest waste on space ever inflicted on the British public in modern times.
Lackeys, lickspittles, charlatans that abandoned their principals at the first whiff of power.
Clegg apologists have always cited the need for a unity government at a time of economic woe. This is complete horsegak!
If the Lib-Dems were really serious about acting in the national interest, they would have voted with the Tories on a vote by vote basis e.g. getting budget through parliament to prevent the economic situation from getting worse.
Instead, they embraced the Tory party, and ended up becoming apologists for some of the worst excesses of the Tories between 2010-15.
Regarding the EU, Clegg's made no secret of wanting to finish his career working in Brussels for whatever EU quango will take him - at our expensive of course.
He is campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU, not out of some lofty principals, but of naked self-interest. That is why I despise the man!
The Lib-Dems are the biggest waste on space ever inflicted on the British public in modern times.
Lackeys, lickspittles, charlatans that abandoned their principals at the first whiff of power.
Clegg apologists have always cited the need for a unity government at a time of economic woe. This is complete horsegak!
If the Lib-Dems were really serious about acting in the national interest, they would have voted with the Tories on a vote by vote basis e.g. getting budget through parliament to prevent the economic situation from getting worse.
Instead, they embraced the Tory party, and ended up becoming apologists for some of the worst excesses of the Tories between 2010-15.
Regarding the EU, Clegg's made no secret of wanting to finish his career working in Brussels for whatever EU quango will take him - at our expensive of course.
He is campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU, not out of some lofty principals, but of naked self-interest. That is why I despise the man!
The Lib-Dems are the biggest waste on space ever inflicted on the British public in modern times.
Lackeys, lickspittles, charlatans that abandoned their principals at the first whiff of power.
Clegg apologists have always cited the need for a unity government at a time of economic woe. This is complete horsegak!
If the Lib-Dems were really serious about acting in the national interest, they would have voted with the Tories on a vote by vote basis e.g. getting budget through parliament to prevent the economic situation from getting worse.
Instead, they embraced the Tory party, and ended up becoming apologists for some of the worst excesses of the Tories between 2010-15.
Regarding the EU, Clegg's made no secret of wanting to finish his career working in Brussels for whatever EU quango will take him - at our expensive of course.
He is campaigning for the UK to stay in the EU, not out of some lofty principals, but of naked self-interest. That is why I despise the man!
I'm going to ask again. Evidence please?
Of what?
"Regarding the EU, Clegg's made no secret of wanting to finish his career working in Brussels for whatever EU quango will take him - at our expensive of course. "
"Clegg apologists have always cited the need for a unity government at a time of economic woe. "
"Instead, they embraced the Tory party, and ended up becoming apologists for some of the worst excesses of the Tories between 2010-15."
and a general one for "Who in their right mind believes anything that Nick Clegg says?", but that wasn't so much a claim as an implication, so feel free to not.
Of Nick Clegg being evil moustache twirler selling out the country to the EU for personal gain MUHAHAHA.
You know, what you have been implying.
I call out Blair as evil because I and others can provide evidence for it, and while a lot of politicians are self serving the whole ideology that they are politicians therefore they will sell their own grannies for gain is tired. It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence before we accept that this name or that name is a complete crook.
TLDR: try harder, if Cleggy is that bad show us the evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Goliath beat me to it.
Goliath, do you hold everybody else to these high standards or just me?
I could play along, if I had an afternoon to waste tracking down articles about Nick Clegg, but I don't.
Now, you may rightfully say that I'm ducking the issue because I have no evidence, and that's a valid point.
But seeing as the Lib-Dems went from 50+ MPs in 2010, to 8 MPs in 2015, that speaks for itself.
The Lib-Dems voted for the bedroom tax, that is a matter of public record. The bedroom tax contributed to a lot of distress for many disabled people in the UK.
The Conservatives welfare reforms, including medical assessments of people with chronic disabilities, was voted through with the Lib-Dems help. Again, that's on the public record.
The Lib-Dems betrayed their promise on student fees. Again, that is a matter of public record.
Nick Clegg worked for the EU at one time. That is a matter of public record. He took money from Goldman Sachs for a pro-EU speech. Again, a matter of public record. Look it up, so my point about Clegg acting out of self-interest for his support of the EU, is valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Of Nick Clegg being evil moustache twirler selling out the country to the EU for personal gain MUHAHAHA.
You know, what you have been implying.
I call out Blair as evil because I and others can provide evidence for it, and while a lot of politicians are self serving the whole ideology that they are politicians therefore they will sell their own grannies for gain is tired. It is not unreasonable to ask for evidence before we accept that this name or that name is a complete crook.
TLDR: try harder, if Cleggy is that bad show us the evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Goliath beat me to it.
So.... - What he said.
Wasting an afternoon tracking down old articles may be productive to you, but not to me!
I wont say if you cant be bothered to source, don't be bothered to post, but if you talk smack you should back it up.
And at least respectfully say nothing when someone turns up with a conflicting point of view that is backed by sourced material if you aren't prepared to provide alternate source material.
Comment above redacted as Do_I_Not_Like_That edited to provide links.
You manned up and gave your side, fair enough. Will take a look at these later.
Considering there's an internal movement within the Lib Dem party to address that very issue of getting back to what they really stand for and other reform, I'd say the idea that they sold out is pretty solid.
I wont say if you cant be bothered to source, don't be bothered to post, but if you talk smack you should back it up.
And at least respectfully say nothing when someone turns up with a conflicting point of view that is backed by sourced material if you aren't prepared to provide alternate source material.
Comment above redacted as Do_I_Not_Like_That edited to provide links.
You manned up and gave your side, fair enough. Will take a look at these later.
I'm always happy to provide links when I can, but when you've got 2 dozen other things on at the same time...
Baragash wrote: Considering there's an internal movement within the Lib Dem party to address that very issue of getting back to what they really stand for and other reform, I'd say the idea that they sold out is pretty solid.
Clegg was weak, no doubt about that. Cameron walked all over him in coalition. The deals the Lib Dems got from the Tories were watered down to the point they were not workable. But the Tories paid up.
The 2011 Alternative Vote referendum was something the Tories did not want, would suit the Lib Dems and Cameron paid up by allowing a referendum in May 2011, which the Lib Dems lost.
Clegg wanted to avoid changes in the funding of higher education, but was forced into it. He apologised. I think this was acceptable and honest. In a coalition you don't get everything you wantand have to make compromises. IIRC Clegg backing down on student fees was the price for having an AV referendum.
Whether Clegg and his party is electable is a fair matter to discuss, and consider it the people have. But I will not call them dishonest for their actions.
Clegg was weak, no doubt about that. Cameron walked all over him in coalition.
I was a long time Lib Dem voter (note was!) in general elections. And that statement is spot on. Clegg was manifestly unsuitable for the role in politicking with the Conservatives. Add to that other feckless idiots (Ed Davey for one) making a mess of things and I am not at all surprised the Lib Dems got the boot.
I said as much and didnt provide a link, but mentioned the AV referendum of May 2011 as public evidence, rather than just claimed such. That is enough.
Saying that (for example) Clegg was a lackey because he (being specific) didnt stand up to the Tories on university fees changes in 2010 is fair comment.
Saying he's Clegg, he's Lib Dem, therefore he is an idiot/lackey/lickspittle isnt fair.
Also you need to take the correctly labeled sledgehammer to the correct politicans rep. Was Clegg 'evil' for his climbdown on University fees? No. Was he a 'liar'? He broke his electoral promise but was not a liar as such given better circumstances he would have supported the student grant. Was he 'weak', and a 'toady' and 'lickspittle' for doing so? Hell yes.
this may be a bit off topic, but what exactly would you guys loose if you did leave? You already have differing border laws and money laws. though, to be fair, I'm not 100% on what exactly the EU gives to a country.
I said as much and didnt provide a link, but mentioned the AV referendum of May 2011 as public evidence, rather than just claimed such. That is enough.
Saying that (for example) Clegg was a lackey because he (being specific) didnt stand up to the Tories on university fees changes in 2010 is fair comment.
Saying he's Clegg, he's Lib Dem, therefore he is an idiot/lackey/lickspittle isnt fair.
Life isn't fair
In a democracy, expressing the opinion that X is an idiot needs no justification.
I know what you're saying, but even so...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brennonjw wrote: this may be a bit off topic, but what exactly would you guys loose if you did leave? You already have differing border laws and money laws. though, to be fair, I'm not 100% on what exactly the EU gives to a country.
To use an example I used earlier, here's an American comparison.
In my opinion, the EU is a lot like your Federal Government in Washington. It's populated with well meaning people who want to do good things.
Unfortunately, the EU bureaucracy is growing at an increasing rate, and beginning to encroach on areas where it has no business. For example, it has control over the VAT on women's sanitary towels.
Weird I know.
Like most governments, the power it has, the more power it wants. It openly talks of a federal Europe, a united states of Europe. It wants more control over its member nations.
If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.
Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.
If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.
Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.
don't really follow the economic arguments, because my main concern has always been with democracy. Even if leaving the EU made Britain worse off economically, I'd still vote to leave, because I believe that democracy beats economy.
IMO, the EU is bad for British democracy, because many of our laws are made by the EU, its institutions encroach on British institutions, but the British people mostly have no say on decisions made by the EU that effect them.
The British people should have the final say on those institutions and officials that rule them, but being in the EU prevents us from having that final say. That's why I'm voting to leave.
If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.
Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.
don't really follow the economic arguments, because my main concern has always been with democracy. Even if leaving the EU made Britain worse off economically, I'd still vote to leave, because I believe that democracy beats economy.
IMO, the EU is bad for British democracy, because many of our laws are made by the EU, its institutions encroach on British institutions, but the British people mostly have no say on decisions made by the EU that effect them.
How about British decisions that affect us? Changes to tax credits for example? Those were just as unaccountable as any decision made by the EU.
The British people should have the final say on those institutions and officials that rule them, but being in the EU prevents us from having that final say. That's why I'm voting to leave.
And I *would* agree with most of those points, but quite frankly I don't trust the current government to remake those laws in a just state.
Look at the Human Rights bill for example. Can you genuinely say that the current government, given all of the cuts and regulations that they have been imposing, would recreate those laws in a way that would actually be fair to the citizens of this country?
Aside from that, at this point our economy is being propped up by the financial markets in London, research, and high value manufacture, and the latter two would take devastating hits if we were to leave. Our economy is already fethed, I do not want to have another ten years of austerity and idealogical cuts brought about by universities and companies being unable to do the research that drives our university system or by manufacturing companies no longer being able to freely transport parts across europe, and so upping sticks and relocating.
I do it for people that I think are better than the posts they're making. Your posts in other threads and some in this thread have seemed well thought out, so I was hoping you'd be able to provide some evidence for your claims so that it wouldn't undermine your argument.
If that's the case, I'd say leave, though I'm not sure what economic changes and possible political tensions that it would cause.
Then again, I wonder how it would be described from another point of view. I'm not doubting what you say, but the description of a democrat varies greatly depending on who you ask, to use that as an example.
don't really follow the economic arguments, because my main concern has always been with democracy. Even if leaving the EU made Britain worse off economically, I'd still vote to leave, because I believe that democracy beats economy.
IMO, the EU is bad for British democracy, because many of our laws are made by the EU, its institutions encroach on British institutions, but the British people mostly have no say on decisions made by the EU that effect them.
How about British decisions that affect us? Changes to tax credits for example? Those were just as unaccountable as any decision made by the EU.
The British people should have the final say on those institutions and officials that rule them, but being in the EU prevents us from having that final say. That's why I'm voting to leave.
And I *would* agree with most of those points, but quite frankly I don't trust the current government to remake those laws in a just state.
Look at the Human Rights bill for example. Can you genuinely say that the current government, given all of the cuts and regulations that they have been imposing, would recreate those laws in a way that would actually be fair to the citizens of this country?
Aside from that, at this point our economy is being propped up by the financial markets in London, research, and high value manufacture, and the latter two would take devastating hits if we were to leave. Our economy is already fethed, I do not want to have another ten years of austerity and idealogical cuts brought about by universities and companies being unable to do the research that drives our university system or by manufacturing companies no longer being able to freely transport parts across europe, and so upping sticks and relocating.
I do it for people that I think are better than the posts they're making. Your posts in other threads and some in this thread have seemed well thought out, so I was hoping you'd be able to provide some evidence for your claims so that it wouldn't undermine your argument.
A fair point, Goliath. In my defence, I'm usually multi-tasking when I'm on dakka, so I don't always have the time to post links to articles.
And thanks for the kind words. I usually get chased out of the news and rumours section for my negative views concerning a new GW model, so it makes a change to get some praise once in a while.
djones520 wrote: I love seeing the illegal immigrant issue becoming so big in Europe.
I'm not saying that in a sarcastic sense. It's been such a hot issue over here for a while now, glad to see it's not just us that's dealing with it.
Yup, but just as in the States, the paranoia in the UK bears no relation to the facts. It's on the record that the areas of the country most paranoid about immigration are those that have the fewest immigrants.
I grew up in Hull, a town in East Yorkshire where studies showed a significant deviation from the mean in IQ - because, being in a corner of the country, there was less genetic diversity, presumably from centuries of inbreeding. Unsurprisingly, it's one of the more racist places in the country, and voted in a UKIP MEP. Whereas, looking at the bloated, pie-faced population, it's plain that their tired old gene pool is in dire need of refreshment.
I rejoice every time I see a slim, attractive woman there because she's inevitably Polish although, alas, the likelihood of her contributing to genetic diversity with a member of the local population is remote in the extreme.
The UK's economy has benefited from immigration, for one thing we need immigrants to pay our pensions, although you'd never guess that from the stream of venom and xenophobia every time the issue is discussed.
The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.
.
Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.
.
Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.
The government knows people are burned out in their late 60s. Pushing back the retirement age is just about delaying pension payments to save money. They don't care if you don't work past 65, you just have to pay out your own pocket for longer until you reach the state pension age. What this will cause is more poverty and people forced to sell their homes. Two things they don't care about either.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.
.
Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.
The government knows people are burned out in their late 60s. Pushing back the retirement age is just about delaying pension payments to save money. They don't care if you don't work past 65, you just have to pay out your own pocket for longer until you reach the state pension age. What this will cause is more poverty and people forced to sell their homes. Two things they don't care about either.
This is yet another reason for leaving the European Union and/or capping immigration.
We can have a welfare state, or we can have mass immigration. We can't have both.
Yup, but just as in the States, the paranoia in the UK bears no relation to the facts. It's on the record that the areas of the country most paranoid about immigration are those that have the fewest immigrants.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The problem with drawing immigrants in to pay pensions now is who is going to pay their generation of pensions? More immigrants? How is this sustainable? Pensions are fethed. People are living too long and the solution is just to keep rolling back the retirement age so that you can't claim until later life, and people will have to pay for their own retirement in their 60s and early 70s.
.
Plus there's the issue of age discrimination. Nobody wants to employ a septuagenarian. We're going to have a huge influx of old age job seekers sooner or later.
The government knows people are burned out in their late 60s. Pushing back the retirement age is just about delaying pension payments to save money. They don't care if you don't work past 65, you just have to pay out your own pocket for longer until you reach the state pension age. What this will cause is more poverty and people forced to sell their homes. Two things they don't care about either.
This is yet another reason for leaving the European Union and/or capping immigration.
We can have a welfare state, or we can have mass immigration. We can't have both.
A) Where do you see mass immigration? Apart from the fact that refugees are not immigrants, I mean. Do you know how many refugees have reached the EU, yet? How many were turned down? How many came to the UK? Did it even touch 2 % ? How much is your government spending on the save the banks/Greece initiative? Do you really think that housing 100k (for example) refugees was an economic issue for Britain?
B) How many of those refugees will go back if the Non-EU-member-UK manages to single-handedly solve the issues in Syria and elsewhere?
C) What makes you believe you can avoid immigration by leaving the EU? In fact, a lot of people argue that without European regulation, Europe will just hand over all "immmigrants" that want to go to the UK. Calais much? Because you live on an island? Do you know how most of these people came to Europe?
C) Your social system being under pressure has two reasons (which are the same reasons why Germany's system is under pressure): You have not been making enough children in the last 30 years, and, the system is too dependent on making "enough" children in one generation. Although I understand that the UK pension system is already very much privatized, something Germany is still facing, even though I am not convinced privatization of financing risks of basic societal tasks is the way to go forward...
As has been rightly said, immigration mitigates that problem. - But only so long until their reproductive behaviour matches the indigenious (which happens pretty quickly, within 1 or 2 generations, depending how good or bad you are at integrating immigrants into your mainstream culture and economy).
C) What makes you believe you can avoid immigration by leaving the EU? In fact, a lot of people argue that without European regulation, Europe will just hand over all "immmigrants" that want to go to the UK. Calais much? Because you live on an island? Do you know how most of these people came to Europe?
The problem with this argument is that the UK, when outside of the EU, would be well within our rights under international law to refuse entry and to ship them all back to France - short of a war breaking out IN France then we have no obligation under international law to do anything but send them back to their last safe point of harbour. So I'm more than happy for the EU to waste it's money putting them all on a ship to the UK, we'll just send the ships back to France.
C) What makes you believe you can avoid immigration by leaving the EU? In fact, a lot of people argue that without European regulation, Europe will just hand over all "immmigrants" that want to go to the UK. Calais much? Because you live on an island? Do you know how most of these people came to Europe?
The problem with this argument is that the UK, when outside of the EU, would be well within our rights under international law to refuse entry and to ship them all back to France - short of a war breaking out IN France then we have no obligation under international law to do anything but send them back to their last safe point of harbour. So I'm more than happy for the EU to waste it's money putting them all on a ship to the UK, we'll just send the ships back to France.
Being an island helps here, not hinders.
First, that is not correct. If these people have no papers, France would not be obliged to "take them back". Second, while I agree that the general level of control in France or Belgium is higher than in the home countries of northern African and the Middle-East, and of course the UK could pump millions into controlling its waterways, my motion was a general one: namely, that it is an illusion to think you can hide behind the Channel. And that without the EU it will be harder to deal with refugee waves, not easier - because you will have less influence internationally, not more.
If the EU is to allow "waves" of migrants through it borders that will be their business. Influence on this is not relevant because it will be the EU area affected. We don't want sway over the southern half of Europe much less anyone they choose to allow to wander through their states willy-nilly.
As to the cost of managing the English channel, that already exists. It is the busiest waterway in the world and well monitored and patrolled by the Navy and Civilian bodies. There is no fear in choosing to leave the EU.
First, that is not correct. If these people have no papers, France would not be obliged to "take them back". Second, while I agree that the general level of control in France or Belgium is higher than in the home countries of northern African and the Middle-East, and of course the UK could pump millions into controlling its waterways, my motion was a general one: namely, that it is an illusion to think you can hide behind the Channel. And that without the EU it will be harder to deal with refugee waves, not easier - because you will have less influence internationally, not more.
I suggest you read up on International law, if France puts all these people on a boat and sends them on to us they are fully obliged to take them back under international law.
Now maybe you're saying they will ignore the law, and this may well be true - the EU ignores international law all the time, but just because France would choose to ignore the law doesn't mean that the UK would need to take these people in, it'd still be up to France to provide for them.
Now I'm still undecided on a vast number of EU issues, but this one seems cut a dry to me - France can wave through as many as they want, but it isn't our problem to deal with them if they do.
As I and others have said previously...if the French government tries shenanigans like this, then the UK should begin blacklisting all transport companies (ferries, trains, airlines etc) who collude with them.
First, that is not correct. If these people have no papers, France would not be obliged to "take them back".
And we're under no obligation to 'take them'? If France chooses to illegally dispatch them, we can illegally return them. Stick them all on boats and then send them over? Alright, we'll stick a new pilot on the boat and sail them back.
Not to mention that we can just deny berthing rights and never let them off the boat to begin with.
But this is a silly topic anyway, because it's not going to happen.
The German Daily Show's take on the Brexit negotiations.
My favourite is the line about piss soaked carpets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)
The German Daily Show's take on the Brexit negotiations.
My favourite is the line about piss soaked carpets.
Not going to lie, I find myself smiling wryly at the first half thinking, 'It's a bit disingenuous, but comedy, eh wot'. Then the second half descended into mild racism and insults and the smile faded and the single eyebrow went up.
If that's anywhere close to the German perspective, I wouldn't be entirely surprised (I expect the average German to be as well educated on all this as the average Brit; not very), but it certainly doesn't endear me towards voting 'stay', quite the opposite.
Awww c'mon, where's that famous UK sense of humour? No worse than any stereotyping of the Germans on UK comedy shows. I thought it was pretty funny
Also, I don't think they were trying particularly hard to endear you towards staying - the tone I get from it is exasperation. Though perhaps we're both projecting there.
I will give you though: I thought the bit about british women was a bit below the belt and unfunny. I dunno where that's coming from to be honest!
Da Boss wrote: The German Daily Show's take on the Brexit negotiations.
My favourite is the line about piss soaked carpets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)
I really want to see what he says about Americans. Jokes on the British are all well and good but the US is the perpetual well of comedy gold waiting to be mined.
The bit about Brexit cat food was funny. The rest? Not so much. All lazy stereotyping. I mean...nothing about David Cameron fething a pig?
And the jibes about not having our Empire any more, and the remarks about World War 2 were a bit rich. Germany fought two bloody World Wars trying to build its own Empire, then finally succeeded through diplomacy and economics.
Da Boss wrote: Awww c'mon, where's that famous UK sense of humour? No worse than any stereotyping of the Germans on UK comedy shows. I thought it was pretty funny
Also, I don't think they were trying particularly hard to endear you towards staying - the tone I get from it is exasperation. Though perhaps we're both projecting there.
I will give you though: I thought the bit about british women was a bit below the belt and unfunny. I dunno where that's coming from to be honest!
It's certainly easier to find something funny, when you aren't the target.
However, in context it's just a light entertainment show meant for German consumption, and it was meant to be humorous to that audience, and judging by the reaction it worked as intended.
However, by showing this, you've given the DM brigade another reason to get their knickers in a twist. Which isn't an altogether terrible thing if I'm honest. They don't half enjoy getting their blood pressure up over Europe, and foreigners in general.
(Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)
Well, Jeremy Clarkson also said that Britain should remain in the EU
I'm pretty sure that revelation may have given some Daily Mail readers a brain aneurysm
(Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)
Well, Jeremy Clarkson also said that Britain should remain in the EU
I'm pretty sure that revelation may have given some Daily Mail readers a brain aneurysm
Not really. I've always considered Clarkson to be a right knob, as entertaining as he was on Top Gear.
Da Boss wrote: Awww c'mon, where's that famous UK sense of humour? No worse than any stereotyping of the Germans on UK comedy shows. I thought it was pretty funny
Also, I don't think they were trying particularly hard to endear you towards staying - the tone I get from it is exasperation. Though perhaps we're both projecting there.
I will give you though: I thought the bit about british women was a bit below the belt and unfunny. I dunno where that's coming from to be honest!
Eh. I don't mind them making jokes about the Queen, the Empire, fish and chips, the war, and so on. That's fair game. There were just a few cracks like the women though that made me go, 'This isn't so much comedy as crass insults'. I mean, there has to be a joke for comedy. Just flat out saying , 'They have bad taste, ugly women and are stupid! Yeah!' isn't so much entertaining as it is a shopping list of generic insults. I expect the lowest common denominator when I see a bloke like Johnny Vegas, but that looked like it was meant to be more of a Have I Got News For you equivalent.
Yeah, I'm kinda agreeing with Ketara here. Especially if you subscribe to the, "take what comedians say seriously and politicians as a nonsense joke" route as a paraphrase of the old saying.
That seems to be another good example of a 'thing' that if passed around would end up making undecideds lean towards the exit. What's probably not taking into account of, is the tendancy for, if someone says, "you're an idiot for trying to do that" a person to then instinctively go, "well, I'll show you!"
Personally, the main argument for me of the UK staying in the EU, is Trump becoming the US President. That would very much end up leaving the UK with a very small number of close friends (especially taking into the account the opinions of senior French politicians from earlier).
Even then, it's not really a case of us directly relying on the close relationship with the US if Trump isn't elected. The way I see it, one of the good 'things' that the UK provides to the world is being the middleman, the broker almost to a whole range of things.
Just as becoming too integrated to the EU hurts that global niche, ending up being too far away from both the EU and the US would end up becoming disastrous.
And, of course, since it's political stuff here. The reality doesn't matter, it's the impression that ends up mattering most.
On an extemely minute chance that the US elects Trump, I don't see how it's going to be that bad for UK. Most of his shenanigans would be relegated at home.
(Oh man, they wheeled Nick Clegg out to defend the EU. Deary me. Do they actually want to remain or what? Is he the best they could find? That said, it's not like the other side are that much better, but Farage can at least sound convincing when he's lying)
Well, Jeremy Clarkson also said that Britain should remain in the EU
I'm pretty sure that revelation may have given some Daily Mail readers a brain aneurysm
Not really. I've always considered Clarkson to be a right knob, as entertaining as he was on Top Gear.
No argument there, but he's usually been the kind of knob that some Daily Mail readers love, railing at "health and safety gone mad" or "political correctness gone mad".
So this stance on the EU is quite surprising, to say the least.
Had a social night out resteraunt with some of the men from my parents' church and met an old friend/school mate. The last time we went on one of these nights out (about 1 year, 2 years ago), we talked about the EU and he was very pro EU (mainly for business reasons, given that he studied business and accounting and thought the EU is good for business), even to the point that he appeared to be offended that I support UKIP.
Imagine my surprise when he said today that he favoured No (Leave), saying "We should be able to make our own trade deals". In fact, of the 5 people I spoke to about it (in a group of 20), half of them favoured No, and the rest were undecided. There was even a Romanian guy (builder, runs his own business) who, though he was non committal (not eligible to vote so declined to give his opinion) had nothing positive to say about the EU. He's in the process of applying for British citizenship (I hope he gets it, he's a great guy).
Someone also mentioned that a friend of theirs who runs a fairly big small business (worth half a million) and wants Out, despite doing the majority of his business with the EU.
Anecdotal I know, but I cannot recall a single person who I know personally that wants to Stay.
1. Old ex-pro EU supporter businessman changes mind - check
2. Infered increase in statically support for exit, (half of 5, of 20?) - check
3. Foreign "friend" who's a great guy, and a businessman who declines to condemn Brexit - check
4. Further anecdote of a friend of a friend, who is also a businessman who wants out. - check.
Are you sure you don't write for the Daily Mail? Your stories are solid gold for them, and coincidentally exactly match their journalistic standards. ;-)
1. Old ex-pro EU supporter businessman changes mind - check
2. Infered increase in statically support for exit, (half of 5, of 20?) - check
3. Foreign "friend" who's a great guy, and a businessman who declines to condemn Brexit - check
4. Further anecdote of a friend of a friend, who is also a businessman who wants out. - check.
Are you sure you don't write for the Daily Mail? Your stories are solid gold for them, and coincidentally exactly match their journalistic standards. ;-)
He's writing his opinion and empirical experiences on Dakka. He doesn't need a point by point citation.
Are you sure you don't write for the Daily Mail? Your stories are solid gold for them, and coincidentally exactly match their journalistic standards. ;-)
Could you please drop the passive aggressive personal insults? Its becoming tiresome and petty. Like I said, I acknowledge its purely an anecdote. This is an ACTUAL conversation that I had just last night, reported pretty much verbatim. I could have spun the truth and said the Romanian guy is anti-EU but I didn't, just said he was non-comittal and had nothing positive to say about it. And I said I only spoke to 5 people out of the 20, I don't know what the rest of the group's opinions were. They might all be pro EU for all I know.
Theres no call for these personal insults and the fact that you're still resorting to ad hominem nearly a week after a Mod warned you just shows your character and your lack of good faith in this debate.But I guess thats pretty much par for the course in this Referendum debate.
I live in the North East of England, so maybe we're just more Eurosceptic up here.
That's actually kinda surprising, I would have thought the North of England would be more pro-EU.
I would have liked to have thought that is the sort of place where much of the EU project money goes. Cause, well, that would be part of the point, right?
Anecdotally - but is anyone else getting surprise from pro EU supporters when they are shown the documents where the federalisation of the EU is the primary aim of the organisation?
I'm more and more certain that the majority who vote in this referendum are assuming their vote is for something else (for or against negotiated deals on minor points of EU policy).
I'm damn sure that the government and the media are deliberately playing down the EU end game.
The European Project is about empire building. Always has been. Its an economic power bloc, and sooner or later it'll be a military power bloc too.
This is our last chance to leave the European Union peacefully, before Europe is too integrated and Federalised. A Civil War broke out in America when the South tried to secede. We might be able to leave now without bloodshed, but what about after another 50 or 100 years of integration, federalisation and transfer of national sovereignty? Hell, even now, Spain is sabre rattling and threatening to take back Gibraltar (empty threats I'm sure).
Just thought i'd mention this - everyone who i've talked to about the EU referendum has said they are voting 'out'; the people who started saying 'in' quickly changed their minds when i showed them the appropriate bits in that 'five presidents report'.
Nobody wants to be part of the 'united states of europe-land'.
I put it to my sister that you can physically fit britain inside every state within America, yet who has more say internationally - texas or britain?
SirDonlad wrote: I put it to my sister that you can physically fit britain inside every state within America, yet who has more say internationally - texas or britain?
However, Texas has a minute population compared to the UK, or the USA as a whole. Why would they have a say internationally and indeed why would they need a say internationally when they are already a part of one of the largest international players?
Ad hominem, passive aggressive? Did you not see my smiley?
It was meant in good humour, however, as SCE was offended by my remarks, I withdraw them in good faith and apologise.
Interesting times for the Tory Party. IDS out of the cabinet, which might led to more damaging revelations, now that he's not bound by cabinet responsibility.
Cameron is definitely looking rattled. It's game on for the referendum.
r_squared wrote: Ad hominem, passive aggressive? Did you not see my smiley? It was meant in good humour, however, as SCE was offended by my remarks, I withdraw them in good faith and apologise.
I did, and I interpreted it as sarcasm. For about the last week, you've been on a petty little personal crusade ranting about the Daily Mail this and the Daily Mail that, making personal insults and sweeping generalisations about people who read it and discuss its articles for days after everybody else stopped talking about the original DM story that sparked the argument ("The Queen backs Brexit!"). Theres nothing remotely "good faith" about spending a week making personal insults about people in this thread who dare to refer to a newspaper you dislike. I strongly dislike The Guardian, but I would never spend a week making petty and personal insults because someone cited an article.
You've already been warned once by a mod about the number #1 rule, and bringing up the Daily Mail every time someone makes a Euro-sceptic remark is dragging the thread back off topic to your personal pet peeve and lowering the tone of debate so please knock it off.
I specifically acknowledged from the beginning that my remark was purely an anecdote. If you were arguing in good faith, you would have responded with an anecdote of your own about whether your own acquaintances are majority No or majority Yes. Instead you made yet another insult.
r_squared wrote: Ad hominem, passive aggressive? Did you not see my smiley? It was meant in good humour, however, as SCE was offended by my remarks, I withdraw them in good faith and apologise.
I did, and I interpreted it as sarcasm. For about the last week, you've been on a petty little personal crusade ranting about the Daily Mail this and the Daily Mail that, making personal insults and sweeping generalisations about people who read it and discuss its articles for days after everybody else stopped talking about the original DM story that sparked the argument ("The Queen backs Brexit!"). Theres nothing remotely "good faith" about spending a week making personal insults about people in this thread who dare to refer to a newspaper you dislike. I strongly dislike The Guardian, but I would never spend a week making petty and personal insults because someone cited an article.
You've already been warned once by a mod about the number #1 rule, and bringing up the Daily Mail every time someone makes a Euro-sceptic remark is dragging the thread back off topic to your personal pet peeve and lowering the tone of debate so please knock it off.
I specifically acknowledged from the beginning that my remark was purely an anecdote. If you were arguing in good faith, you would have responded with an anecdote of your own about whether your own acquaintances are majority No or majority Yes. Instead you made yet another insult.
OK, if you're going to get you're panties in a bunch, crack on.
As it happens, I think using the daily mail as a source for world news, and the basis for the formation of a worldview is incredibly blinkered. It's an appalling collection of journalistic jingoism and it needs shooting down and criticising at every turn.
Tabloids are generally pretty bad, but the DM fails because it tries to gloss itself with a veneer of middle class respectability. You appear to like it, that's on you, but I'm not going to stop criticising the paper because you take it personally.
I apologised for my attempt at humour earlier, you've refused it. Again, that's upto you. I'm sure you'll report me to a mod again when you feel personally insulted.
At the moment only one of you is approaching a warning, and it isn't Shadow Captain. Pull your head in. You can disagree with the Daily Mail, as a lot of us do, without being rude to other users about it, and using their reading/posting of it to try and dismiss their contributions to the thread. That's all that's to be said about that in thread, now move on.
The Guardian has a pretty comprehensive survey of attitudes. Of course this stuff is mostly just fluff, but I found some of it pretty funny, especially the stereotypes bit.
But it looks to be good news for the Leave crowd, having the lead pretty consistently so far in polls that I've seen. If that pattern continues, the result is pretty predictable.
Da Boss wrote: The Guardian has a pretty comprehensive survey of attitudes. Of course this stuff is mostly just fluff, but I found some of it pretty funny, especially the stereotypes bit.
But it looks to be good news for the Leave crowd, having the lead pretty consistently so far in polls that I've seen. If that pattern continues, the result is pretty predictable.
After our 'shock' election result last time round I'm fairly cautious about poll results.
People have started to discuss this at work and out of a dozen London professionals only two are definite for staying: one has recently gained UK citizenship and seems uncomfortable with change the other is a Pole terrified by the idea of the EU being overcome by a German Rightwing hegemony and the the UK would be the only realistic hope of countering this from within. The later having grown up under the USSRs dominance has an excuse for his slightly OTT fears but doesn't get to vote.
He also made a great case for leaving, perhaps inadvertently swinging some undecideds!
What's that got to do with EU? A prominent proponent for Brexit standing up for his principles and sticking one in the eye for the bad tories?
Well for a start, many commentators on both sides of the poltical spectrum believe that his exit is calculated to do the maximum amount of damage to the party leadership, the government and the conservatives.
I think it shows how willing he is to do damage to the country in order to achieve his idealogical aims.
Many Brexit campaigners have suggested the same thing, willing to put up with financial and political discomfort in order to cede from the EU.
Admirable? Perhaps, but sensible and in the best interests of the country it might well not be.
Its the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water, effectively shooting ourselves in the foot for ideological notions that are, in a global economy, almost completely pointless.
The fear that somehow we cede our identity and nationhood by remaining within the EU is a common one, and many proponents of Brexit like to point out regulation from without as being a symptom. But does any of that stop us being British, or having our own identity? Certainly there is compromise, but even outside we would have to compromise. If we believe that we would be masters of our own destiny outside the EU, you would be right, but at what cost?
In a global economy, and environment, everything we do will be influenced and controlled by agencies, and other nations outside of our control. In fact it is likely that we would have less control over own destiny outside of the EU than within seeing as we would be subject to the whims of other nations, who have no compelling reason to listen to, or consider our demands.
When the British Empire was strong, so we're we, and we had clout and influence and could dictate things to our own advantage. However those days are long gone, and the idea that we will be able to prosper and forge our own path without partners is a folorn hope likely to leave us bobbing along on the periphery, ignored by pretty much everybody.
I believe that if you want influence and a say in world affairs, for the opinions and beliefs of the British to count, and to truly protect the interests and future of the British people, then remaining within the EU and striving for reform is the best way forward.
Inside the EU, we have a say, and as a major economy, we could really challenge the German and French hegemony and drive the EU forward.
The problem is because we have only dabbled on the outside of the EU and haven't fully engaged, we have let the Continental Europeans call the shots. If we fully engage, there is every possibility that we could actually make the EU work better.
Outside of it, we will be facing a German/ French dominated financial behemoth. That's not really my cup of tea at all.
It also occurred to me that IDS's resignation has many parallels with his Brexit ideals, but also serves as an insight into what could be expected. IDS represents Britain, a member of the cabinet and policy maker. However disillusioned with his role and frustrated with his inability to get exactly what he wants, he decides to leave the cabinet. Timing his exit so as to further his agenda, he feels able to take a place on the backbenches and keep his independence. Believing that he maybe able to better serve his constituents elsewhere.
However, he is now a bankbencher, one amongst many, and his prominent cabinet position has been taken by another, who is now able to directly influence party policy in a much greater way.
He may have kept his principles, but he has sacrificed signifucant influence and control to do so. Whilst he may have been a player in the past, he has relegated himself to a position of lesser significance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The European Project is about empire building. Always has been. Its an economic power bloc, and sooner or later it'll be a military power bloc too.
This is our last chance to leave the European Union peacefully, before Europe is too integrated and Federalised. A Civil War broke out in America when the South tried to secede. We might be able to leave now without bloodshed, but what about after another 50 or 100 years of integration, federalisation and transfer of national sovereignty? Hell, even now, Spain is sabre rattling and threatening to take back Gibraltar (empty threats I'm sure).
Are you seriously suggesting that if at a future point we decided to leave, our only option would be war?
In the near future, no. Of course not. I'm saying you don't know what the political climate will be a century into the future. If Europe ends up as a unified federal state, a "United States of Europe", then like the USA, if states try to secede there may well be an increased risk of war than there is now. We have to consider our country's long term future, and not just our own selfish short term economical interests.
Spain is already sabre rattling over Gibraltar, and France is threatening to revoke Anglo-French treaties , and we haven't even had the Referendum yet.
There are historical precedents for conflict breaking out when states try to secede from a large federal union, and to think it couldn't possibly happen here because we're too civilized and enlightened is hubris.
r_squared wrote: So, IDS grabs his convictions and walks out in a huff over Welfare reform.
IDS isn't quitting over principles. If he was quitting on principle then he would've done that long ago, such as when ATOS was brought in to evaluate disabled people with no medical knowledge of the conditions they were evaluating.
IDS has resigned as a strategic move. The politician who pushes these latest cuts through will be completely vilified, as it is plainly obvious that disability is being cut to help fund tax cuts for the rich. IDS resigns before his image is further tarnished and then attacks that which he was, until now, quite happy to force onto the most vulnerable people. He's just looking out for himself.
I think it's a last straw situation. He backs cuts in principle, but he's had enough of being used as scapegoat for implementing Osborne's policies. I believe him when he criticises the unfairness of them, but there are other factors too such as not being painted a villain just before the EU vote.
In the aftermath of last year's General Election victory, I wrote on this very forum that Cameron should enjoy his honeymoon period, because the Tories will find a way to implode over the Europe issue.
I was dsmissed as a naysayer, shot down in flames!
I'll mention no names, but you know who you are!
Having lived through the John Major years, the Tory capacity to self-destruct should not be underestimated, and here we are with Ministers at each other's throats, slagging each other off in public.
It's only the fact that Labour are so useless, can the Tories get away with this civil war.
r_squared wrote: So, IDS grabs his convictions and walks out in a huff over Welfare reform.
My first reaction was "Oh really, IDS has grown a conscience at last?" too but my dad informed me that he may be wanting to jump ship before freedom of information requests which they have been suppressing will show that a whole bunch of vulnerable people died as a direct cause of their benefits being sanctioned by his schemes.
The figure he mentioned was 20,000 - i'm still struggling to believe the number will be quite that high, but one is too much in my book.
r_squared wrote: So, IDS grabs his convictions and walks out in a huff over Welfare reform.
My first reaction was "Oh really, IDS has grown a conscience at last?" too but my dad informed me that he may be wanting to jump ship before freedom of information requests which they have been suppressing will show that a whole bunch of vulnerable people died as a direct cause of their benefits being sanctioned by his schemes.
The figure he mentioned was 20,000 - i'm still struggling to believe the number will be quite that high, but one is too much in my book.
Nasty party this, Tories that, Labour aren't capable of making any hay of it anyway! C'mon chaps this isn't really an issue about party politics, its much bigger than that.
IDS is a sideline and a distraction and nowt to do with the EU issue at hand. Does anyone really care whether who the Minister for Work and Pensions is from day to day.....No.
I'd consider it relevant as he is a highly prominent Brexit supporter, and his actions have caused quite the kerfuffle amongst the tories, polarising opinion and casting the pro-EU tories as members of the nasty party, probably to improve the standing and support for the "compassionate" tories of the Brexit.
It's politics, and it has already been alluded to by many people that this exit was never just about disbility benefits but the tip of the iceberg of division between IDS and the tory leadership. Subsequently he has timed it to deliver maximum benefit to the leave movement, and cause maximum disruption to the govt whilst eroding confidence.
It is only a bump in the road of the broader issues, but it is worthy of discussion.
notprop wrote: C'mon chaps this isn't really an issue about party politics, its much bigger than that.
No, it has nothing to do with party politics whatsoever...
Add to that the fact that the Leave campaign seems to have seen one of their most powerful members resign from his cabinet position and gone "this can only be a good thing for us" for some reason.
Add to that the fact that the Leave campaign seems to have seen one of their most powerful members resign from his cabinet position and gone "this can only be a good thing for us" for some reason.
For a long time, it's been crystal clear that the British public don't have much, or any, regard for their MPs, and don't give two hoots for their position on the EU referendum, which is why the polls show a pretty close race, so far.
That's true. It was less a comment on "hey look IDS is gone, what are you going to do now?! " and more a confusion as to why this has been seized upon by the various tabloids as something positive.
I just don't understand why the MP with possibly the most political clout on the leave side resigning is supposed to be a good thing.
Is it the political grenade he threw at Cameron/Osborne on the way out perhaps?
Goliath wrote: That's true. It was less a comment on "hey look IDS is gone, what are you going to do now?! " and more a confusion as to why this has been seized upon by the various tabloids as something positive.
I just don't understand why the MP with possibly the most political clout on the leave side resigning is supposed to be a good thing.
Is it the political grenade he threw at Cameron/Osborne on the way out perhaps?
Aside from the whole DWP issue, IDS leaving allows him to play I quit my job for the good of the country card.
And, he's also not limited by cabinet collective responsibility, so he can speak his mind on a lot of things.
It's clear to me that on Europe, the Conservative grass roots want out, but the top brass of Dave and George want to stay, come hell or high water.
Okay, now i'm concerned that despite the majority of people in the uk wanting 'out' (thats how it looks to me anyway) the ex-pats will vote us 'in' because they can't be bothered to renew their passports.
SirDonlad wrote: Okay, now i'm concerned that despite the majority of people in the uk wanting 'out' (thats how it looks to me anyway) the ex-pats will vote us 'in' because they can't be bothered to renew their passports.
SirDonlad wrote: Okay, now i'm concerned that despite the majority of people in the uk wanting 'out' (thats how it looks to me anyway) the ex-pats will vote us 'in' because they can't be bothered to renew their passports.
Huh. Weird that british citizens might want to continue to make use of the advantages of the EU.
Obviously the solution is to frame it as a personal failing of the people that vote differently to you.
I think the point that SirDonlad is trying to make, is that people who have lived outside Britain for years, and will probably continue to do so in the future, are voting on something that will effect the majority of people who live in the UK for most of their lives.
And? Using that sort of argument, at my place of work I am the youngest by about 25 years. My closest colleague in age is 46 and I am 21 (22 in a fortnight) after that it goes 50 and there are five or six people in their late 50s to mid 60s. They are all adamantly against staying in the EU.
But the thing is, their decision is going to have an effect on me and my generation for, on average, three times as long as it will affect them (assuming average life expectancy of 80). And the vast, vast majority of their arguments are thinly veiled xenophobia or Daily Mail/Sun headlines, whilst they simultaneously have to take advantage of EU immigration rules to travel to Cologne regularly for work.
Should I get more of a vote than them because they're going to be affected less than me? Or because they're actively (and in a couple of cases, wilfully) misinformed about some things?
Because that's a similar sort of point to the one that SirDonlad seemed to be making regarding Expats.
notprop wrote: I agree....Nonetheless Goliath should be fired by his clearly older and wiser colleagues for his disloyal thought crime.
Honestly, I just want to be able to have an earnest political discussion that doesn't devolve into racism, untruths or jokes about throwing bacon at immigrants.
I'm in Basildon at the moment Furthest south I've ever lived. I miss the North People were polite and were interested in discussions for the sake of intellectual curiosity
(Either way, this is off-topic and we should start talking about the EU again).
Basically, my point is that there a load of ways in which arguments could be made that people's votes should count for less, but that way lies a lack of democracy based on people's "eligibility" to vote and moves towards a dictatorship where only those deemed worthy are allowed to express their political views.
Goliath wrote: And? Using that sort of argument, at my place of work I am the youngest by about 25 years. My closest colleague in age is 46 and I am 21 (22 in a fortnight) after that it goes 50 and there are five or six people in their late 50s to mid 60s. They are all adamantly against staying in the EU.
But the thing is, their decision is going to have an effect on me and my generation for, on average, three times as long as it will affect them (assuming average life expectancy of 80). And the vast, vast majority of their arguments are thinly veiled xenophobia or Daily Mail/Sun headlines, whilst they simultaneously have to take advantage of EU immigration rules to travel to Cologne regularly for work.
Should I get more of a vote than them because they're going to be affected less than me? Or because they're actively (and in a couple of cases, wilfully) misinformed about some things?
Because that's a similar sort of point to the one that SirDonlad seemed to be making regarding Expats.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger!
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with SirDonlad, I'm just interpreting what point he or she was trying to make.
Of course lots of Ex Pats (AKA migrants, immigrants to European Countries or Emigrants from the UK) are going to want to vote to stay in. Voting out could potentially screw up their lives. Seems totally fair.
Though I know a few british living in Germany who are just applying for German citizenship instead and abandoning their british citizenship.
Da Boss wrote: Of course lots of Ex Pats (AKA migrants, immigrants to European Countries or Emigrants from the UK) are going to want to vote to stay in. Voting out could potentially screw up their lives. Seems totally fair.
Though I know a few british living in Germany who are just applying for German citizenship instead and abandoning their british citizenship.
As I mentioned earlier, a Romanian guy at my church is doing the same.
Technically, I'm North British, but that's an argument for another day
Anyway, back OT.
I wanted to post some polling on the referendum so far, and here's some from the scot goes pop politics blog. It's a pro-Scottish independence blog, but it does do a lot of good polling anaylysis on other issues, such as the EU referendum.
Anyway, here is their poll of polls for EU referendum voting intentions, and although IN has the lead, it's going to be a pretty close result in June, if things stay the way they are.
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
50/50 ONLINE/TELEPHONE AVERAGE :
Remain 45.8% (-0.1)
Leave 39.7% (+1.1)
ONLINE AVERAGE :
Remain 41.2% (+0.3)
Leave 40.0% (+0.2)
TELEPHONE AVERAGE :
Remain 50.3% (-0.5)
Leave 39.3% (+2.0)
(The Poll of Polls takes account of all polls that were conducted at least partly within the last month. The online average is based on ten polls - five from YouGov, three from ICM, one from ORB and one from BMG. The telephone average is based on four polls - one from ComRes, one from Ipsos-Mori, one from ORB and one from Survation.)
Da Boss wrote: Pretty interesting. Is that general polling or just for scotland? Because it contradicts some of the other polls I've seen a bit. But not by much.
Yeah, good point. I'm pretty sure that they're polls conducted in Scotland, but they might be drawn from the rest of the UK.
Another good source of polling is Lord Ashcroft. If you overlook the fact that Ashcroft is a Tory peer, his commissioned polls are a very useful source, as their sample size can often be up to 10,000 people. Most polls only do 1000 people.
Professor John Curtice's blog is another good poll source. Curtice is one of the UK's polling experts, in case you didn't know.
I went on to the 'register to vote' thing on the governments website and was very surprised to find that someone who now lives abroad can still vote on domestic politics. i find that weird since it shouldn't affect them and my memories of the topic was that you lost your right to vote after 15 years of living abroad. Apparently this changed very recently.
The way it stands now, I'm cool with foreign nationals who live within the uk having a vote because it directly affects them, but always having a vote no matter where you live or how long it's been? Suspect.
The article i came across stated that there was a surprisingly large amount of ex-pats in Spain registering to vote since the referendum was announced - i saw this as being:
1. people who would like to not bother with passports when they want to convince family to come see them and see European union passports as an inevitable part of EU membership
2. people who see the potential for a beurecratic divide as another barrier for them to see friends/family.
and 3. gang members hiding out in Spain not wanting British police and interpol to have an official link-up.
A little angst-y i know, but after what my family said about how scotland was definitely going independent, and my community's confidence that the conservatives would never get elected again, i get concerned when there is a "clear majority" and then i see strange things like that previous article - just the type of thing that gets talked about in surprised tones after the vote.
The conservative party is even highlighting the fact ex-pats can register for the referendum vote using their websites...
http://www.conservativesabroad.org/campaigns/register-vote-eu-referendum
I suppose i have this opinion because i believe that if you move to a different country to live and work you are entitled to a vote in the politics and laws that affect you there, not the place you moved from - you left that place and your mark on it behind.
Sorry if that offends you, but i'm a bit pragmatic like that.
This seems relevant - lawyers for ex-pats claimed that excluding them from the referendum based on (then) current legislation "penalised them for exercising their EU free movement rights"
http://votes-for-expat-brits-blog.com/
That irks me - "i want to overturn existing rules because of my EU rights". And our judges actually listened to them.
Oh I agree. If you've decided to emigrate permanently and have been resident in a differently country long term you really ought to apply for citizenship. You should learn the language too and make an effort to integrate. That goes for immigrants to Britain as well as British ex pats.
Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?
That aside, we are talking about a very small community of people. Hardly enough to make a huge difference either way.
There will always be people with a vested interest no matter what the vote is about, you can't legislate them out, if you could, then for a start we may see a few less tory governments as we ban the over 65s from voting because of their protected pension rights.
r_squared wrote: Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?
Funnily enough, that wasn't enough to let Scottish people living outside Scotland vote in their referendum.
r_squared wrote: Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?
That aside, we are talking about a very small community of people. Hardly enough to make a huge difference either way.
There will always be people with a vested interest no matter what the vote is about, you can't legislate them out, if you could, then for a start we may see a few less tory governments as we ban the over 65s from voting because of their protected pension rights.
I don't think that you can strip someone of citizenship can you? maybe if you seek citizenship with an enemy nation? It's a bit weird to me that someone would live in a country for over 15 years and not sought citizenship there.
I don't think financial arrangements matter that much now - you just pay tax where you are rather than UK taxes as far as i am aware.
I hope i'm barking up the wrong tree and the ex-pats want the UK out too.
I reckon emigrants should retain their voting rights for a while. 15 years seems pretty fair to me. The Irish government denies the right to vote pretty much immediately (after 6 months, but that's effectively immediate given electoral cycles, and you have to physically travel home in that time frame). I think that's wrong.The way the UK does it has always seemed much fairer and pro-citizen to me.
I wasn't aware they'd changed the rules to make it indefinite though - that is interesting. I don't think it should be indefinite and 15 years seems like long enough. It can take up to 8 years to get citizenship, and it may not be automatic, so giving a generous allocation seems like the right thing to do, to me. I'm an immigrant though, so I guess I am biased.
Surprised scots outside of scotland didn't get a vote on independence. That is wrong. Democracy should be inclusive, and independence would have been a serious thing for those Scots.
r_squared wrote: Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
Actually being able to claim your state pension (and private pension for that matter) that you have earned after you leave the UK has nothing at all to do with being in the EU. It happened long before the EU even existed and we pay out to everyone who emigrated even if they emigrated to a non EU country.
r_squared wrote: Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?
That aside, we are talking about a very small community of people. Hardly enough to make a huge difference either way.
There will always be people with a vested interest no matter what the vote is about, you can't legislate them out, if you could, then for a start we may see a few less tory governments as we ban the over 65s from voting because of their protected pension rights.
I don't think that you can strip someone of citizenship can you? maybe if you seek citizenship with an enemy nation? It's a bit weird to me that someone would live in a country for over 15 years and not sought citizenship there.
I don't think financial arrangements matter that much now - you just pay tax where you are rather than UK taxes as far as i am aware.
I hope i'm barking up the wrong tree and the ex-pats want the UK out too.
That is an interesting link, particularly at the end...
Changing attitudes in the immigration debate is a monumental uphill battle when you consider how far perception is from reality. As part of a survey the RSS commissioned from Ipsos MORI last year, people were asked what percentage of the British population they thought were immigrants? The collective answer was 31%. The actual figure is 13%.
Even more confusing, another poll from Comres asked if all citizens of other EU countries should have the right to live and work in the UK? Only 36% agreed, against 46% who disagreed.
The pollsters then asked a different question, should British people be free to live and work anywhere in the EU? This time 52% agreed with only 26% disagreeing. It seems the British want to have their gâteau and eat it.
If there are 5 million British living abroad, a fair chunk of them appear to be in Australia, but I would surmise that of those who are living and working in a fellow EU nation, their insight might be quite useful. Especially if you consider the hobbit hole mentality of some resident members of the UK. ;-)
It was a shame about Scotland, I imagine that this precedent will extend to their next referendum.
That seems to imply that those who want out want an end to immigration, which my own experience is not the case. Immigration between the countries of Europe existed before the EU, and it’ll continue long after we vote to leave the EU (assuming we do). The difference? The countries (both the UK and of the EU) will be free to choose who they want in, rather than accepting anyone who shows up on your doorstep- regardless of if they will benefit your country or not.
Now to challenge the concept that appear to have been arrived at that everyone from outside the UK will vote to stay in.
I’ve got a few friends who live in Spain – they have integrated, pay their own way (they all have decent pensions) pay their taxes and have learnt to speak Spanish so they can get on with the locals. These people are voting OUT of the EU, as they are fed up of seeing a bunch of Brits arrive in Spain who refuse to integrate, claim everything they can, avoid as many taxes as possible and expect everyone to fit around them.
The argument being that my friends can be fairly confident in the event of an EU exit that they will be allowed to remain in Spain, whilst those who may be asked to leave are the ‘undesirables’. Thus I wouldn’t be so quick to judge that those who are outside the UK and requesting the right to vote will all be voting to stay in – my sample may be quite small (5 friends living in the EU) but 80% of them will be voting out from what they tell me.
r_squared wrote: Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
Actually being able to claim your state pension (and private pension for that matter) that you have earned after you leave the UK has nothing at all to do with being in the EU. It happened long before the EU even existed and we pay out to everyone who emigrated even if they emigrated to a non EU country.
That's true. You can be living on the Moon, and you'll still be able to claim your British pension.
r_squared wrote: Are they not still British citizens though? Most are claiming the pension they earned, which is enabled through the EU.
It sounds like that it's being suggested that they have their citizenship stripped from them?
Funnily enough, that wasn't enough to let Scottish people living outside Scotland vote in their referendum.
Everybody agreed that using the current electoral roll was the fairest and most practical solution at the time.
Asking us to pay the same fees for access to the single market as (for instance) Norway is a realistic consequence.
Sorry to bring up this old post (and I know you were actually trying to make a different point), but just getting up to date with this thread and seen this and wanted to point out why it is just plain wrong and as it seems to be one of the key arguments of the 'remain' side it's always good to show how their logic is wrong.
The EU is only the worlds largest trading block only if you include the value trade produced by the UK – if the UK were to leave the EU then the USA would overtake the EU as the worlds largest trading block, so if we were to leave and strike a better trade deal with the USA than we currently have this would be better for us than remaining in the EU. As a note I’m not saying we definitely will get a better trade deal than currently, just that it is a possibility, since nobody knows what will happen either if we leave OR if we stay in (which could suffer just as much as voting out) the only thing we can do is point out various possibilities.
With regards to getting a deal with the EU and the concept that ‘we’d have to deal like Norway does’ – this is unlikely, outside the EU we would be the 5th largest trading block in the world, making a deal with the second largest trading block in the world (see above why second). This would be an entirely different negotiating position to a trading block not in the top ten (I’d like to say where Norway are, but the top ten are the only lists I can find) to the largest trading block in the world (which the EU currently is).
The EU has in the past made concessions to it’s rules to get trading deals with large trading blocks, and there is no reason to believe that they would not do so if the UK were to leave also.
The entire argument from the pro side on the risk to trade of an exit is based on comparing an apple to an orange, which they can do all they want but I’d like to think the majority people can see through it. Far better countries to look at would be Japan and South Korea – as the UK would slot in between these two country on the scale of world trade in the event of leaving. In the case of South Korea the EU has a free trade agreement already in place, in the case of Japan negotiations are well advanced. Now I have not done an extensive investigation into what the trade deals the EU has with both these countries entails, but one thing that is evident is that they do NOT require the countries to follow all the EU rules (like the Norway deal does) – this is therefore a better example of what the UK should expect if we vote to leave, and not the 'Norway solution' that we keep getting told is all we could have.
I would point out that the US seems to be advocating for us to remain in the EU, so I doubt that us leaving would suddenly mean that we would get better trade terms with the US. There is still, after all, an ocean between us.
Oh I agree, hence why I said I'm not saying that we will get a better deal - just that it is a possibility, particularly considering that there will be a change in leadership in the US by the time we actually leave the EU.
Though the ocean doesn't mean much from an economic point of view any more, there is an ocean between the EU and South Korea - but they still have a free trade agreement. It's a global economy after all.
Despite what it might look like on my last few posts I'm not actually decided on if I'm in or out myself yet, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the remain argument. A lot of what they say just doesn't add up ('Norway like deal', 'ex-pats forced to come home', etc) and it makes me worried that they have decided to use these arguments to convince us to remain than to give us the actual benefits of the EU.
As an example of something that definitely ‘could’ happen to get us a better deal with the USA.
Let’s assume Donald Trump wins (and I don’t want to pull this onto a USA election thread so let’s accept it is a possibility), Trump has already stated he wants to see a European country take a larger role of NATO. The UK is part of NATO and could take part of the £4BN pound NET saving made from leaving the EU to increase our NATO spending and take more of a driving seat position, if we agreed to do this in exchange for a better trading deal can anyone say for sure that the USA under Trump would say no?
Again, this is just a simple example – real trade deals are very complex negotiations, but we cannot be sure that we wouldn’t get a better deal, as we don’t know what is on the table. And what isn’t.
Stranger83 wrote: Oh I agree, hence why I said I'm not saying that we will get a better deal - just that it is a possibility, particularly considering that there will be a change in leadership in the US by the time we actually leave the EU.
Though the ocean doesn't mean much from an economic point of view any more, there is an ocean between the EU and South Korea - but they still have a free trade agreement. It's a global economy after all.
Despite what it might look like on my last few posts I'm not actually decided on if I'm in or out myself yet, I'm just trying to point out the flaws in the remain argument. A lot of what they say just doesn't add up ('Norway like deal', 'ex-pats forced to come home', etc) and it makes me worried that they have decided to use these arguments to convince us to remain than to give us the actual benefits of the EU.
Even in a globalized economy most trade is inherently local. In or out of the EU, most trade for the UK will still occur with the rest of Europe. Distance, time zones, regulation differences, transport costs, they all limit intercontinental trade.
Trade yes - trade agreements no. We are talking about the trade agreements, not the amount of trade.
Distance is of cause relevant to trade - transport has a cost so the shorter distance you transport something the cheaper the cost, but it isn't the only factor.
And of cause even trade is less of a problem than it used to be. Look at how much China sells to the USA but it's hard to find countries that are further apart.
Hmmm, not terribly convincing. He talks about companies investing in the UK, but they are doing so whilst we are currently in the EU, and will remain so for the next 2 years minimum regardless of the poll results.
I'm not sure how that is an argument for Leave?
It just reads, as I would expect it to read, from the co-founder of Leave.EU
If you want to leave the EU, you'll nod your head in agreement, if you're against, you'll disagree vehemently.
The problem with the article is that it's broad and sweeping. Many of it's points need some sort of verification and source material, for example, his statement that the US are choosing the UK over the Azores as a centre for Intelligence probably refers to RAF Croughton According to the Wall Street Journal there are a number of reasons, financial and logistical that Croughton is being selected over Lajes, none of which have anything to do with membership of the EU, or security.
Wall Street Journal.
It can only be information if it's verifiable, otherwise you're heading into Anecdote and opinion territory.
Anecdotes and opinions might be interesting to the person relating the anecdote or opinion, and people who agree with them, but they are weak material in a debate, unless they are backed up with evidence or verifiable sources.
Unfortunately I don't have time to go through the rest of the article in order to try and find his sources and test the veracity of his claims. I'm sure he makes some convincing points, but TBH, I'm not convinced by his partisan bias without some serious back up to his claims.
Yep, a lot in that that doesn't add up (where has he got £12bn as the cost of the EU from?) However what we cannot deny is that a report commissioned by an 'IN' organisation (so no doubt using scenarios they set up) has been decided by PwC, one of the most respected financial organisations in the world, that the UK would be better off out of the EU.
Add that to the fact that Moodys yesterday said that the risk to our credit rating of leaving is 'small' then it really is starting to look like the IN crowd are losing the economic debate, and that must worry them as that is the battlefield they thought was easiest to win and that they have built their campaign in so far.
I saw a painful interview on CH4 news last night where Peter Spiegel (the FT's Brussels man) a Belgium Journalist, whose name escapes me but she has an unfortunate grin on her face considering she was standing at the scene of a bomb blast!
Anyway I found what they were saying quite shocking. The gist of PS's comments were that the Belgium's had been slow off the mark, deliberately so to save money, in dealing with both immigration, internal security and defence spending; only starting to do anything just prior to the Paris atrocities.
I was surprised at this as Brussels is the de facto home of the EU and that so little had been done to protect the core of the EU project and more importantly the citizens there. All of the participants quite blasé about the prospect of attacks.
What was said next I found particularly shocking. The Belgium Journalist stated that Islamist elements were known to be present in Brussels/Moenbeek and in numbers but were not seen as an issue as Belgium was not thought to be a target for terrorism.
This is supposed to be the heart of the EU. Their inaction on this threat from within borders on complicity to me. They have sat on their hands for years allowing the situation to fester at the heart of the EU.
This seems all to prophetic to me. How could anyone want to be part of this shambles?
-- she'd have to go as they travel/work quite a bit in the 
