Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Latest poll makes for interesting reading. I wonder what effect the Brussels attacks will have on the vote in June?
Honestly, whilst in the more immediate term it’ll have some effect – and some people may well still remember it come voting day – I doubt it’ll have much impact on actual voting as, sad as it may be, the majority of people will have forgotten about it come voting day.
Which is probably what the IN camp will put down to that most recent poll, but I honestly don’t think that is the case. I truly believe that speaking to the majority of people who I know to be undecided that IN is losing the campaign (and I am also starting to lean towards out, as can probably be guessed by my posts).
Their arguments just don’t add up, and are fairly easy to poke holes in – and even their big selling point of the economy they are starting to lose ground on, with their own leader saying wages would go up and their commissioned independent report saying the economy would be better if we vote out.
I think their entire problem seems to be that the IN campaign seem to be targeting IN voters, giving us the rhetoric that IN voters expect, whilst the OUT campaign seem to be targeting both OUT and undecided voters, giving a lot of OUT rhetoric but also basing them on some degree of fact. Whilst you can poke holes in some of OUT more extreme numbers and policies (no doubt aimed at OUT voters) they also are showing how OUT would work for the betterment of the UK much better than the IN side are showing remaining would do.
As much as I hate the phrase, it is true that IN are just using ‘project fear’ and the majority of what they are telling us to fear is being disproven or can easily be shown to be based on incorrect assumptions, like the ‘Norway style agreement’ I argued against above.
If IN is to sway undecided voters (and they should aim to do so as this is where the referendum will be won or lost) they need to change tactics on this, and the time for them to do so is fast running out.
notprop wrote: 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?
Don't know who is this "Belgium Journalist" you're talking about, but you should be aware that there are many "political colors" in my country as well and that some of them want the same thing than your Brexit partisans.
That goes for some "journalists" as well.
Reality is a bit distorted here. Our police tries to do its best, but you know, even with terrorists around, there are still laws to respect and their numbers is not infinite. Military can't do the police's job as well.
Also, while it's true there are problems in Molenbeek, it's not really a "terrorist den" like some medias are trying to make it pass. It's like saying Brooklyn is a terrorist nest because some people doing horrible things lived here for a while.
If you find it shocking, ask yourself why some States try to block so much having a common security force because "it threatens their sovereignty". The reason it is happening is because there isn't enough Europe, not because of Europe itself. It's because Member States are selfish and only look their own belly button.
D_I_N_L_T: Hold on there bucko. You're complaining about the EU treading on people's sovereignty on the one hand, and yet expecting them to intervene in Belgium's internal security operations on the other? Smells like hypocrisy.
Conflating the Belgian Government and the EU is laziness of the highest order.
Da Boss wrote: D_I_N_L_T: Hold on there bucko. You're complaining about the EU treading on people's sovereignty on the one hand, and yet expecting them to intervene in Belgium's internal security operations on the other? Smells like hypocrisy.
Conflating the Belgian Government and the EU is laziness of the highest order.
Probably best to continue this discussion on the relevant thread, but I'm arguing that a new task force, drawn from NATO members, which is zero to do with the EU should take the lead on this to help Belgium.
It just shows how much the same information can be used by the messenger to construct a completely different point of view.
See, again the IN camp has posted something that is easy to pick hole in. The report from PwC is pretty clear, yes for the two years from 2018 (when we would eventually leave the EU in the case we vote out) to 2020 there is a dip in economic output, but after that the outlook for the UK outside the EU was BETTER than being in – and this from a report commissioned by a party wanting to stay in.
I did like this bit from the his article ‘The challenge to those pushing for the UK to leave is to make the economic case for how the UK would be better off outside the EU. When presented with solid economic analysis from numerous respected bodies, they choose to cherry-pick, ignore the facts or claim scare-mongering.’ – errmmmm, you’re the one choosing to cherry pick the two years of the report up to 2020, and not the fact that we benefit after that date from an exit.
SirDonlad wrote: Isn't the EU parliment in brussels half the time?
Most of the EU institutions are in Brussels, what's your point? Are the office workers in the institutions supposed to engage in counter terrorism? There is no EU counter terrorism force or intelligence agencies and I'm surprised to see people concerned at the prospect of a federal Europe arguing that there should be. Personally I would have no problem with establishing such an agency with the agreement of all concerned parties and with enough democratic oversight. But I was not aware that that was also a POV commonly expressed by Brexit supporters.
It just shows how much the same information can be used by the messenger to construct a completely different point of view.
See, again the IN camp has posted something that is easy to pick hole in. The report from PwC is pretty clear, yes for the two years from 2018 (when we would eventually leave the EU in the case we vote out) to 2020 there is a dip in economic output, but after that the outlook for the UK outside the EU was BETTER than being in – and this from a report commissioned by a party wanting to stay in.
I did like this bit from the his article ‘The challenge to those pushing for the UK to leave is to make the economic case for how the UK would be better off outside the EU. When presented with solid economic analysis from numerous respected bodies, they choose to cherry-pick, ignore the facts or claim scare-mongering.’ – errmmmm, you’re the one choosing to cherry pick the two years of the report up to 2020, and not the fact that we benefit after that date from an exit.
Oh interesting – that seems to be a different report to the one I read the other day, wish I could remember where I followed the link from previously.
Now on that report (and I’ve only given it a glance read) things do look worse, though I do note this part
‘Average Total real UK GDP could be around 36-39% higher in 2030 than in 2015 in the two exit scenarios, as compared to a cumulative GDP rise of around 41% in our counterfactual scenario where the UK remains in the EU.’
So better if we stay in – but 6-2% is well within a margin of error for estimating something 15 years in the future (admittedly it could go the other way too)
All in all, a bit of a swing back to IN for me – but hardly a knockout punch.
It's much the same argument as scotland to me - a certain short term economic hit, an uncertain but possibly positive economic future that will require restructuring much of the economy and therefore some groups losing out and others gaining.
I don't think people should decide pro or anti Brexit based solely on economics, because it's too fluid and hard to predict. Ideology really does have a place in the debate. Do you believe the world is best served by local governments pursuing the interests of the local population because they best understand it's needs? Or do you think pooling our sovereignty makes it greater than the sum of it's parts and big problems require big power blocs? I think there are good arguments either way and I fall heavily on the latter.
There is probably a certain bias towards the wishes of the customer but more importantly a number of partisan commentators misrepresented the findings to forge their own narrative, or they simply did not understand, which is not uncommon with politicians and journalists on topics of economics.
SirDonlad wrote: Isn't the EU parliment in brussels half the time?
Most of the EU institutions are in Brussels, what's your point? Are the office workers in the institutions supposed to engage in counter terrorism? There is no EU counter terrorism force or intelligence agencies and I'm surprised to see people concerned at the prospect of a federal Europe arguing that there should be. Personally I would have no problem with establishing such an agency with the agreement of all concerned parties and with enough democratic oversight. But I was not aware that that was also a POV commonly expressed by Brexit supporters.
If the EU has loads of it's institutions in brussels shouldn't they have a vested interest in belgian security? A liaison, at least, for co-ordination of security efforts of both local police and EU parliamentary security.
As an institution which may be larger that their own parliment they are an integral part of brussels security arrangement and i think it could contribute to the security burden it lays on a rather small (geographically speaking) nation.
In the UK you can subsidise police time - football clubs for example - can pay to have an increased police presence with or without specialist equipment and i don't see why the same couldn't be done in brussels.
Some clubs get given a bill for police time etc when the response needed is excessive for the event; this effectively pins the cost of football hooliganism on the clubs involved - perhaps this model could be applied to EU security arrangements and give belgian security forces a boost in funding?
EU interference in security and police in an EU member state is EXACTLY the sort of thing that would drive the Euroskeptic wing into overdrive. Now that an attack has happened, it's easy to say "Oh hey they should have done XYZ" but prior to any attack, the mention of combining European Security agencies raises hackles all over the place.
I mean, I'd be all for it like I said, but it's not usual to see a Euroskeptic arguing along the same lines.
What i'm saying is that the EU parliment is based in the wrong place half the time - i don't think that belgium is capable of funding the part-time security arrangement required and having the EU bureaucratic structure Susidise belgium's existing security sounds perfectly amicable doesn't it? Belgium retains whatever sovereignty it has left and the EU bureaucracy pays for the extra security burden it creates.
Da Boss wrote: EU interference in security and police in an EU member state is EXACTLY the sort of thing that would drive the Euroskeptic wing into overdrive. Now that an attack has happened, it's easy to say "Oh hey they should have done XYZ" but prior to any attack, the mention of combining European Security agencies raises hackles all over the place.
I mean, I'd be all for it like I said, but it's not usual to see a Euroskeptic arguing along the same lines.
I'm not opposed to mechanisms for national security and police forces to come together to share intelligence, resources and command structures on a temporary basis to deal with international crises, but I am vehemently opposed to the EU exploiting tragedies like this to make power grabs and set up EU agencies that interfere in domestic politics and jurisdiction.
As Frazzled said, once we create a European Homeland Security, it'll never go away, it'll just grow and grow and then mission creep and bureaucratic empire-building will set in. Massive and powerful international organisations are inherently anti-democratic. If national voters dislike the actions, behaviour and practices of an EU organisation and perceive them to be corrupt, how on earth can they possibly oppose it? How do they go about getting it dismantled? Vote in a Eurosceptic party into the European Parliament? They're just one nation's worth of MEP's in a Parliament comprising dozens of Nations with competing interests; and the power of the Parliament is very limited anyway.
Massive and powerful bureaucracies are inherently anti-democratic and unaccountable to the electorate, because it adds layer upon layer of government between the voters and the politicians in charge.
Do you believe the world is best served by local governments pursuing the interests of the local population because they best understand it's needs? Or do you think pooling our sovereignty makes it greater than the sum of it's parts and big problems require big power blocs? I think there are good arguments either way and I fall heavily on the latter.
You say you fall heavily on the side of big international power blocs. I fall on the other end of the spectrum. You and I are diametrically opposed on this issue.
SirDonlad wrote: What i'm saying is that the EU parliment is based in the wrong place half the time - i don't think that belgium is capable of funding the part-time security arrangement required and having the EU bureaucratic structure Susidise belgium's existing security sounds perfectly amicable doesn't it? Belgium retains whatever sovereignty it has left and the EU bureaucracy pays for the extra security burden it creates.
Belgium can easily fund the security arrangements, it's just that the country can't seem to organize it efficiently. The city of Brussels is a bureaucratic nightmare with 19 different municipalities and mayors, in addition the police is hopelessly fragmented. The whole country is like a less efficient mini version of the EU.
So, the steel crisis. Pretty rough for the 40,000 or so people whose jobs are on the line.
The EU wanted to do something about China dumping cheap steel onto the market through tarrifs, but the UK government veto'd the plan.
This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I speak of seeing the UK as a drag on the proper functioning of the European Union. I hope this is highlighted and questions are asked in your parliament about it.
That can't be right surely? I thought that all legislation in the EU was done by faceless bureaucrats? Are you implying that not only did our government have the ability to do something about this issue, but that they also actively defeated in order to cosy up to China?
Seriously though, when you say "UK Government" do you mean the actual tory government? or our MEPs? Because immediately overturning EU legislation for the hell of it does sound like something or UKIP MEPs might do.
Da Boss wrote: So, the steel crisis. Pretty rough for the 40,000 or so people whose jobs are on the line.
The EU wanted to do something about China dumping cheap steel onto the market through tarrifs, but the UK government veto'd the plan.
This is the sort of thing I am talking about when I speak of seeing the UK as a drag on the proper functioning of the European Union. I hope this is highlighted and questions are asked in your parliament about it.
I thought the anti-dumping plan went through or are they still talking about it?
UK a drag? Hmmm. I think the current steel problems are a lot more complex than simply China dumping cheap steel on the market and flooding the global market. This is a very interesting take on it and points out the fact that, due to heavy handed and convoluted EU regs on energy and carbon reduction, our steel industry can't compete on the global market.
In fact, the UK hands are tied both by the EU energy regs as well as being prevented by EU rules from unilaterally bailing out our flagging industry. The best our politiicans can do is shrug their shoulders and say "Sorry guv..."
The editor-in-chief of the Eurosceptic Daily Mail benefited from at least £88,000 in subsidies from the European Union for his country houses in Sussex and the Scottish highlands in 2014.
Payments from the EU totalling £59,534.85 were made in 2014 for Langwell estate, a 20,000-acre stretch of moorland near Ullapool in the Scottish Highlands owned by Paul Dacre. A further £29,118.76 was paid to a P Dacre in respect of a home in Wadhurst, Sussex during the year.
The payments were made under the common agricultural policy, one of many EU institutions regularly attacked in the pages of the tabloid.
The payments for Langwell, first unearthed by BuzzFeed, come on top of almost half a million euros the estate received between 2011 and 2012 from the funds set up under the CAP.
Governments are only required to list CAP payments covering the most recent financial year, however Farmsubsidy.org, which archives the records, lists payments totalling €179,267 for the property in 2011, rising to €300,408 the following year.
Under today’s exchange rates, Dacre has benefited from at least £460,000 in subsidies since 2011.
One cannot help but think that if, say, an MP had been caught indulging in such behaviour then certain newspapers might him them a bit of a hard time perhaps ..?
Ketara wrote: The steel industry will be preserved in one form or another. It's too crucial to national defence to let slip.
I think you over estimate the competency of British politicians.
I'm of the opinion that they desperately don't want to do it, as nationalisation is something the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to. By the same measure though, national defence tends to be reasonably high up on their list of priorities as well, and every person involved in military logistics will be screaming that if Tata go under, so does our ability to build warships and tanks independently. The government will squirm and fight it, but if there's absolutely no option, they'll take a 60% stake, lay off half the workers, and do their best to subsidise what's left until it's competitive again.
I know some of you will probably dismiss this due to the source, and I don't like the Guardian much either - but this explains the background a little. The political background anyhow.
From what I understand, the Tories could have saved the steel industry by now if they wanted, but they do not want to for ideological and diplomatic reasons.
Ketara wrote: The steel industry will be preserved in one form or another. It's too crucial to national defence to let slip.
I think you over estimate the competency of British politicians.
I'm of the opinion that they desperately don't want to do it, as nationalisation is something the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to. By the same measure though, national defence tends to be reasonably high up on their list of priorities as well, and every person involved in military logistics will be screaming that if Tata go under, so does our ability to build warships and tanks independently. The government will squirm and fight it, but if there's absolutely no option, they'll take a 60% stake, lay off half the workers, and do their best to subsidise what's left until it's competitive again.
With all due respect, Ketara, the idea that the Conservatives are ideologically opposed to nationalisation is complete nonsense. They were more than happy to nationalise the banks.
Years ago, you could argue the Tories were against nationalisation, but Cameron's mob are not, and never have been, Conservatives. They occupy the same middle ground as everybody else these days.
However, your point about national defense is a good one.
Here's what I think will happen. The Tories MUST nationalise steel. Already reeling from IDS's resignation, and presiding over a bitterly divided party torn apart by the EU referendum, Cameron can ill afforded another crisis, or be seen to be 'betraying' British workers.
As someone who lives not too far from Port Talbot, the loss of the Steelworks will probably destroy the whole town.
Even then, only one of the four rollers is actually in operation, and it is still losing £1,000,000 a day.... I don't know if nationalising it would even help.
Nationalise the steelworks and railways, use the steelworks to produce new tracks and trains and connect up the country properly. Every city to have a nationalised tram/local rail/tube system too.
Save a whole bunch of industries in one go and improve the whole country
We seem to be run by people determined to cut the throat of our industry and workers. We don't have any heavy industries left, successive governments have shut it down, demolished the sites and sold the rest to foreign companies who wind them up over a number of years and asset strip then. Coal and steel both dead, Nuclear power sold off, transport and rail all sold off, which is why we have such high rail prices, it's obvious that companies like Deutsche Bahn would pass more costs onto us than Germans.
The out campaign keep saying we can manage on our own. We don't have anything left, successive Tory governments have destroyed our ability to be independent, and Labour haven't helped much either, most of the remaining Steel industry near my parents wound up under Blair's government.
Today the minimum wage increases, and employers are crying that it'll cost jobs. It's not even a huge increase, and it's barely enough of a wage for people to get by due to the soaring cost of living and housing prices. The UK is a low wage economy with effectively high unemployment. Don't let the improving employment figures fool you, they're all part time jobs and zero hour contracts, they aren't living jobs. Not like those thousands and thousands of full time jobs offered by the steel industry.
I broadly agree with you, Treesong, which is why I find it depressing that when a politician like Jeremy Corbyn comes along who is proposing an alternative, doing things differently to the Red and Blue Tories, he gets villified for not being sufficiently patriotic or wearing the right kind of suit.
Another bit of info on UK attempts to stifle chinese steel dumping in Europe. Edit: I should point out for fairness sake: Ireland backed the UK on this as usual. The FG government at the time is pretty close to the Tories. Scumbags. Glad they got a kick in the nads in the last election.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh man, I just saw that apparently China has just released new punative tarrifs on European steel, including from Wales! To prevent US from dumping in THEIR market.
Oh man, I just saw that apparently China has just released new punative tarrifs on European steel, including from Wales! To prevent US from dumping in THEIR market.
Stay classy, China!
An eye for an eye, I say. We should respond in kind. And yes, the Tories are donkey-caves for blocking EU attempts to restrict dumping of Chinese Steel. I'm still not changing my mind re Brexit.
SCE: I really, really don't care (in the nicest and most respectful way possible!) what way you vote in the Ref. Good for you! I'm glad you guys are having the Ref and I'm ambivalent about the outcome.
I guess the main drum I'm beating on here is intended to counteract the anti-EU propaganda that I see spewed all over the place and point the finger where it needs to be pointed.
Apparently it endangers the 'troika' group which is the IMF, the European Comission and the European Central Bank.
The IMF want Angela Merkel to take thier recommendations on greek debt relief but nobody wants to give an answer until we have had the referendum.
I think this says that britain's contribution to the EU is big enough to be a factor in whether or not the EU can cover greeces economic problems.
Obviously i see this troika group as a sign of the EU trying to enhance their economic control by securing permanent ties to the IMF in furtherance of a 'united states of europeland', but then i am pro-exit.
Intrestingly enough, a 'troika' is also a russian vehicle pulled by three horses as well as an obscure administrative term for 3 people working together in an administrative capacity.
Well dave camron and the ins are at it there using tax payers money to print and post a pro europe mailshot to all uk households costing 6.3million pounds plus another 3 mill on online. The leaflet is a continuation of "project fear" you know we will lose all trade/jobs thing will cost more etc.
Didn't get that leaflet, got another one today though, from "www.eureferendumfacts.org"
Unsurprisingly, it seems to be lacking, in well, actual facts and, naturally, doesn't share any sources.
EU Referendum 'facts' wrote:"EU law overrules UK law
This stops the British public from being able to vote out the politicians who make our laws. EU judges have already overruled British laws on issues like counter-terrorism powers, immigration, VAT, and prisoner voting."
Wouldn't pretty much half of them listed there all under the ECJ, or ECHR, like mentioned earlier?
Compel wrote: Didn't get that leaflet, got another one today though, from "www.eureferendumfacts.org"
Unsurprisingly, it seems to be lacking, in well, actual facts and, naturally, doesn't share any sources.
EU Referendum 'facts' wrote:"EU law overrules UK law
This stops the British public from being able to vote out the politicians who make our laws. EU judges have already overruled British laws on issues like counter-terrorism powers, immigration, VAT, and prisoner voting."
Wouldn't pretty much half of them listed there all under the ECJ, or ECHR, like mentioned earlier?
Both Yes and No campaigns fly fast and loose with actual details.
A collection of pro-remain Europeans has just formed a group called #PleaseDon’tGoUK, and this month they’re launching a campaign called #hugabrit. Their intention, according to founding member Tessa Szyszkowitz, a UK correspondent for an Austrian news magazine, is to “send a love bomb to the British people, because we think the EU is a project worth fighting for”.
....... The big unknown, of course, is the extent to which British suspicion of the EU has a symptomatic correlation with the traditional British horror of being touched by strangers. It’s hard to imagine Nigel Farage, for example, responding positively to an unsolicited hug from anyone. You might get better results from promising to leave him alone, or hugging him and then offering to stop.
“We have encountered some difficulties in our attempts to overcome the traditional British reluctance towards physical contact,” says Szyszkowitz, “but we are happy to take up this challenge for a higher cause. In truth, I think the Brits like to get hugged as long as you ask politely.”
Skullhammer wrote: Well dave camron and the ins are at it there using tax payers money to print and post a pro europe mailshot to all uk households costing 6.3million pounds plus another 3 mill on online. The leaflet is a continuation of "project fear" you know we will lose all trade/jobs thing will cost more etc.
If this isn’t against the election rules it should be.
Doesn’t matter if you are in/out or undecided – this is not a good use of public money, if they want to promote staying in they should pay for it via donations just like everyone else.
This has really annoyed me no end, I cannot believe that the tax payer is being forced to fund something like this. This could well be the straw that makes me vote OUT of the EU
Edited to say:
In fact I would argue that this sets a dangerous precedent. If the government can use taxpayers money to campaign for what it thinks is the ‘right’ vote then what is to stop it doing the same at a general election? If the conservatives think they are the right people to get voted in at the next GE (and I assume they will do) can we expect another £10M bill to the taxpayer for them to send us all a letter explaining why they think that.
This cannot be allowed to proceed – and if it does I definitely will be voting out, this cannot be allowed to work.
"The leave campaign will also be entitled to a similar amount of taxpayers' money to put out their leaflet once the campaign gets going so there will be information from both sides," he told Good Morning Britain.
The government is not neutral, let me be very clear about that.
This government, the democratically elected government and cabinet, has taken a decision that on balance we would be better off, safer and stronger, inside a reformed European Union.
And therefore we are entitled to put our case out.
– MICHAEL FALLON
So the point doesn't seem to be the money which Brexit will get too, more the timing.
Skullhammer wrote: Well dave camron and the ins are at it there using tax payers money to print and post a pro europe mailshot to all uk households costing 6.3million pounds plus another 3 mill on online. The leaflet is a continuation of "project fear" you know we will lose all trade/jobs thing will cost more etc.
If this isn’t against the election rules it should be.
Doesn’t matter if you are in/out or undecided – this is not a good use of public money, if they want to promote staying in they should pay for it via donations just like everyone else.
This has really annoyed me no end, I cannot believe that the tax payer is being forced to fund something like this. This could well be the straw that makes me vote OUT of the EU
Edited to say:
In fact I would argue that this sets a dangerous precedent. If the government can use taxpayers money to campaign for what it thinks is the ‘right’ vote then what is to stop it doing the same at a general election? If the conservatives think they are the right people to get voted in at the next GE (and I assume they will do) can we expect another £10M bill to the taxpayer for them to send us all a letter explaining why they think that.
This cannot be allowed to proceed – and if it does I definitely will be voting out, this cannot be allowed to work.
How do you feel about Brexit having the same amount of money available for their campaign out of the taxpayers pocket?
Apparently both campaigns get £7m to spend, but this £9m leafleting, to tell us 'the facts' and the government's position, is in addition to that.
Also campaigning isn't due to start yet but this doesn't count. It's certainly a fiddle and the facts of these leaflet need to be examined, I suspect it was not put together by an independent body.
Leave campaigners complained that the promotional campaign was costing more than the £7m each side will be allowed to spend by law, once the official campaign period starts next week.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Apparently both campaigns get £7m to spend, but this £9m leafleting, to tell us 'the facts' and the government's position, is in addition to that.
Also campaigning isn't due to start yet but this doesn't count. It's certainly a fiddle and the facts of these leaflet need to be examined, I suspect it was not put together by an independent body.
Leave campaigners complained that the promotional campaign was costing more than the £7m each side will be allowed to spend by law, once the official campaign period starts next week.
"The leave campaign will also be entitled to a similar amount of taxpayers' money to put out their leaflet once the campaign gets going so there will be information from both sides," he told Good Morning Britain.
The government is not neutral, let me be very clear about that.
This government, the democratically elected government and cabinet, has taken a decision that on balance we would be better off, safer and stronger, inside a reformed European Union.
And therefore we are entitled to put our case out.
– MICHAEL FALLON
So the point doesn't seem to be the money which Brexit will get too, more the timing.
How do you feel about Brexit having the same amount of money available for their campaign out of the taxpayers pocket?
IF Michael Fallon has said that (and I haven't seen the interiew - you may have mis heard what he said) then he should be fired right now for blatant misrepresentation of that FACTS.
A lot of the brexit referendum is being held on opinion given as fact, thats understandable so we don't really know what will happen either way - but here are some facts about the referendum that we know 100% are true.
Each side - in and out - will be allowed to spend a maximum of £7 Million on their campaign - so this mail shot is £2M MORE than the out campaign can spend in the entire referendum, and they get to spend the same £7M during the campaign!
The £7Million will largely come from private donors, with only a small portion (I believe it is in the high tens of thousands or low hundred thousands but don't have this info to hand) coming from the public purse. To claim that OUT will be able to spend £9M on the tax payers money is a blatant lie, and if I was an IN voter and one of the chief guys campaigning for my vote told a lie like this I'd have to have a serious review of the 'Facts' they are telling me.
Now again, I've not seen the interview so cannot say that he did say what you think he said, but if he did how can anyone ever trust anything he'll ever say again.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Both sides have been allocated 7m out of the public purse to spend on their campaigns.
The in campaign have over spent by 2m, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.
The Michael Fallon quote came from further down on the page that was linked to earlier.
r_squared wrote: I'm afraid you're mistaken. Both sides have been allocated 7m out of the public purse to spend on their campaigns.
The in campaign have over spent by 2m, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.
The Michael Fallon quote came from further down on the page that was linked to earlier.
They have overspent by £9 Million - as they will be spending the £7million in the campaign also.
Have you got anything that backs up that they will get £7 Million from the public purse - this seems to go against every other election ever where only a small fraction comes from the tax payer. It also seems to fly in the face of everything that I have read about the campaigns where the opinion is that the Out Campaign will only be able to spend around £5 million as that is all they have currently pledged in donations.
Michael Fallons claim of this is the first I've read of it anywhere - and I've done quite a lot of reading about the referendum.
It’s correct that the two official campaigns will get some public money in direct grants and publicly funded benefits such as a free mailout across the country. This is likely to amount to millions, but it’s not clear exactly how much. It shouldn’t be confused with the £7 million spending limit each will have which is money they have to raise themselves
What assistance the campaigns can get
•A grant of up to £600,000. The Electoral Commission says this can be used for certain spending including administrative costs, putting together campaign broadcasts and producing a leaflet to send out to voters.
•A free mailing of that leaflet to voters. This is only for the delivery by Royal Mail, rather than dissemination online. It excludes any spending on production.
•Free referendum campaign broadcasts.
•A free dedicated page in an information booklet sent to every household by the Electoral Commission.
•Use of certain public buildings for meetings.
These don’t count towards the £7 million limit for campaign spending as they’re not charged to the campaigns.
So my assumption that the Taxpayer money was in the low hundred thousands is wrong, but it's still a very long way short of the £7million claimed by Fallon, and this goes to both sides - so in is spending an EXTRA £9Million of taxpayer money, which again is just not right and is a dangerous precedent to set.
I was going to quote the same source actually.
The mail out and other benefits and assistance will amount to millions from public funds being spent.
The free mailout each lead organisation is entitled to, for instance, is likely to cost a significant amount. Back in 2011, during the referendum on the AV voting system, over £8 million of public money was spent funding the delivery of the two lead campaigns’ free mailout to addresses across the country.
It's safe to say that millions is going to be spent by both sides trying to sway the electorate.
Brexit will get their slice of wedge, much to my personal annoyance too. ;-)
But they both still have to work with the £7m limit, whatever benefits they get on postage and subsidies. However you cut it, the £9m spent on these other leaflets is entirely independent and additional to this.
These leaflets produced to 'inform' the public should have been produced by an independent body. That way £9m could have been spent on them in a way that was open, fair and likely of genuine informative value, but it wasn't, it's a biased publication for the benefit of one side over the other. And the government has used its position to get that significant spend on top of the rules that are supposed to govern equal spending for both campaigns.
r_squared wrote: I was going to quote the same source actually.
The mail out and other benefits and assistance will amount to millions from public funds being spent.
The free mailout each lead organisation is entitled to, for instance, is likely to cost a significant amount. Back in 2011, during the referendum on the AV voting system, over £8 million of public money was spent funding the delivery of the two lead campaigns’ free mailout to addresses across the country.
It's safe to say that millions is going to be spent by both sides trying to sway the electorate.
Brexit will get their slice of wedge, much to my personal annoyance too. ;-)
You are obviously not understanding why this is outrageeous and damn right dangerous for our democracy so let me try to explain it to you again.
We have rules about how an election, which includes referendums are to be run. As part of these rules spending limits are set and a set amount of the public purse is provided to each side to ensure that one side cannot buy all the vote of the election. This is perfectly fair, and whilst I hadn't realised how much came from the public purse the fact that both sides get the same makes the position resonable.
What the Governement has done is taken an extra £9Million - FROM THE PUBLIC PURSE - and claimed that this is OK because it sets out the governments point of view. Everyone is aware that the governement is pro EU so why couldn't they do this with their free leaflet? Why should they be given a second leaflet, paid for by tax payers money that has been collected to pay for diablilities/police/fire and the NHS, all of which are needing to undergo cuts.
Even more worrying is the claim that they have a right to use this £9Million, which again is in addition to the rest of the money which they intend to spend, because it 'Sets out the governments position'. Does this mean that in future general and council elections we can expect to see the government spending a similar amount of public money to promote the party that is in power? Afterall I think it probably would be their opinion that voting for their party is the correct vote - and we now have a precedent that the government can spend public money over and above what they are allowed to spend as long as it promotes their message.
I still don't see anything that supports Fallons claim that the out side will be given £9million of tax payers money on top of what they are already to be given, so I stick by my claim that his comments are an attempt to provide us with misinformatiom, which sadly seems to have worked in your case. His attempt was to make it look like both sides are being allowed to spend the same and get the same from the public purse, but anyone with any common sense can see through this for the lie that it is - and since he told such a blatant lie he should be made to resign, because nobody can ever trust anything he might say again.
If the governement was to come out today and say that IN wll not get a second free mail shot then I can understand your argument that they are not getting anything from the public purse that OUT are not getting - but this is not the case, this £9Million pound mail shot is in addition to the free one that they intend to use also.
After reading this thread I know that you are very pro EU, and have a bit of a bblinkered view on anyone who might disagree with what you are saying, but hopefully this has made it clear to you why so many people are rightly angry about this,
Added to which the leaflet is being produced outside of the agreed upon timeframe for campaigning.
I am pro-EU reform (rather than just pro-remain), but this has been a TFG move by the remain group in government. I agree it also sets a dangerous precedent, along with denying people with different opinions from accessing government data and services.
Da Boss wrote: Yep. A bad move by Remain, most likely because the "official" Remain side is full of dishonest arseholes.
I figure it will backfire. A Leave vote is looking more likely by the week.
Ah well.
I don't think so, it could go either way and the propaganda campaign for both sides hasn't started properly yet. Expect a torrent of BS to be shovelled by both sides.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Did anyone else get theirs with an envelope? Is there a return address I can send it back to?
My parents found it and left it out in the kitchen, idk if there was an envelope that they threw away or not.
Not really.
Bear in mind it's a govt. issued leaflet -- not Con. party -- so even if there is any postal bill to pay it'll be picked up by the tax payer not the Con. party.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Did anyone else get theirs with an envelope? Is there a return address I can send it back to?
My parents found it and left it out in the kitchen, idk if there was an envelope that they threw away or not.
Not really.
Bear in mind it's a govt. issued leaflet -- not Con. party -- so even if there is any postal bill to pay it'll be picked up by the tax payer not the Con. party.
That's just insult to injury. By tearing that leaflet up and throwing it in the bin, I'm technically wasting my own tax money!
I haven't had the leaflet through the door yet, but if Nick Clegg features in it, that angry shouting noise echoing across Britain is coming from my house!
and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland throughout the week commencing 9 May to avoid disruption ahead of their local elections.
This is why I despise politicians. The leaders of the devolved assemblies asked Cameron not to have the EU referendum in June, as it would disrupt the campaigns for the Scottish parliament elections, Welsh assembly, Northern Ireland etc etc
Cameron ignored them.
And yet, they have the nerve to say they won't deliver this leaflet to my house in Scotland until May 9th to avoid disrupting elections up here!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We have a commitment to reduce EU red tape
I nearly dislocated my hip falling out my chair! My lawyers will be contacting the government to secure compensation for the damage done to my ribs, mouth, teeth, and hip!
On a serious note, this is pie in the sky nonsense from Westminster. The usual watered down, weasel words, that have about as much legal standing as a £3 coin!
I stopped reading after that sentence . 9 million pounds wasted on this propaganda.
A commitment carries no water in Brussels - it's not worth the ink or paper it was written on.
and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland throughout the week commencing 9 May to avoid disruption ahead of their local elections.
This is why I despise politicians. The leaders of the devolved assemblies asked Cameron not to have the EU referendum in June, as it would disrupt the campaigns for the Scottish parliament elections, Welsh assembly, Northern Ireland etc etc
Cameron ignored them.
And yet, they have the nerve to say they won't deliver this leaflet to my house in Scotland until May 9th to avoid disrupting elections up here!
......
And yet the poor put apon Scot, Welsh, Noriron and perfidious English have some how been able to vote in local, European and national elections at the same time for many years without fudging it up.
Perhaps the current problem with Scots schools is worse than thought if the Scots population are now no longer capable of handling such a complex situation. Probably best for all if you all loose the right to vote.
and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland throughout the week commencing 9 May to avoid disruption ahead of their local elections.
This is why I despise politicians. The leaders of the devolved assemblies asked Cameron not to have the EU referendum in June, as it would disrupt the campaigns for the Scottish parliament elections, Welsh assembly, Northern Ireland etc etc
Cameron ignored them.
And yet, they have the nerve to say they won't deliver this leaflet to my house in Scotland until May 9th to avoid disrupting elections up here!
......
And yet the poor put apon Scot, Welsh, Noriron and perfidious English have some how been able to vote in local, European and national elections at the same time for many years without fudging it up.
Perhaps the current problem with Scots schools is worse than thought if the Scots population are now no longer capable of handling such a complex situation. Probably best for all if you all loose the right to vote.
Ahem, we use the Alternative Member system of voting up here for the Scottish Parliament elections
The stunt succeeded as a provocation — enraging Erdogan, who filed a criminal complaint with the state prosecutor in Mainz, where ZDF is based, and Turkish officials like Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus, who called the poem “a crime against humanity” — but backfired on the network, which removed the video from its website, and Böhmermann, who was perhaps unaware of an obscure law still on the books in Germany that makes slandering a foreign head of state an offense punishable by up to five years in prison.
.... hmmm ..... might be worth remembering ...
.... If I was a a former world leader -- perhaps a 2 term President of the USA before the current incumbent for example -- might be worth getting some lawyers to have a poke around and see what was said.
Especially if those redacted 28 pages makes life a bit awkward.
Despite that provision, Germany, like many European countries, does impose legal limits on free speech that ban certain kinds of statements, including Holocaust denial and the promotion of Nazi ideology, but also “defamation of the President, insult of the Federal Republic, its states, the flag, and the national anthem.”
err.... what ?!
TBF making fun of any aspect of Germany is our prerogative is it not ?
Without Farage and UKIP we wouldn't even be having this referendum.
True to an extent, but one should never underestimate the Tory grassroots - they've been agitating for this for a long time, as well.
Also, Farage isn't exactly a winner in my book. His campaigns to be elected as an MP have always ended in farce and disaster, so I'm glad somebody else is in charge.
Despite that provision, Germany, like many European countries, does impose legal limits on free speech that ban certain kinds of statements, including Holocaust denial and the promotion of Nazi ideology, but also “defamation of the President, insult of the Federal Republic, its states, the flag, and the national anthem.”
err.... what ?!
TBF making fun of any aspect of Germany is our prerogative is it not ?
Yes, it is.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:So Turkey has made Germany its bitch?
More precise, Erdowan has made Merkel his bitch (which according to the slanderous "poem" in question makes her a goat, btw). Or at least she plays easy to get, for the time being. We will know for sure if and when our Arch-chancellor of Doom(TM) allows/refuses the opening of criminal proceedings (a prerequisite in this particular case)
It’s barely been an hour since the Electoral Commission revealed the two main opposing EU Referendum groups, and the Brexiters are already in another mess.
After the EC said that ‘Vote Leave’ (which is led by Gove, among others) is designated as the official campaign for Brexit — which entitles it to state funding — the other main Brexit group was furious.
Arron Banks, founder of rival Brexit group Leave.EU, told the Telegraph he would be taking legal action.
We are going to see lawyers now. We think they haven’t applied the criteria they should have.
It is not right. We have over a million supporters, [Vote Leave] have nobody but a few Tory politicians. … This is a political stitch-up.
The bottom line is we’re going to judicially review it and we will go at it 100 per cent. The net effect is that it will probably delay the referendum.
Getting official designation allows the winning group the right and spend £7million during the 10 week campaign. Everyone else will have their spending capped at £700,000.
This difference in spending limits is at the heart of the rivalry over designation.
For the rest of us, it could mean more misery
oh good,....
All getting a bit life of Brian eh ? The splitters !
Well, I expected the Tories to tear themselves apart over the referendum but I did not expect those who wanted to leave to further tear themselves apart over wanting the same thing but not getting money for it
I detest Farage, but I thought he was pretty gracious in defeat. I reckon he wants everyone to row in behind the official campaign to increase the chances of Brexit.
No big surprise that the establishment group got the rights though.
Da Boss wrote: I detest Farage, but I thought he was pretty gracious in defeat. I reckon he wants everyone to row in behind the official campaign to increase the chances of Brexit.
No big surprise that the establishment group got the rights though.
Although are they technically not anti-establishment given the government is pro-europe?
Da Boss wrote: I detest Farage, but I thought he was pretty gracious in defeat. I reckon he wants everyone to row in behind the official campaign to increase the chances of Brexit.
No big surprise that the establishment group got the rights though.
I don't really like Farage's ideas either, but on a personal level he does seem like a great guy. And he is funny.
Banks drops threat to launch legal challenge against Vote Leave being lead Brexit campaign
Arron Banks, the Leave.EU founder and a key figure in Grassroots Out (GO), has put out a statement saying he will not be going to court to challenge the decision not to make GO the lead Leave Organisation. He said:
I have spent a lot of time and so much money, alongside many others, over the past few months and years making sure this referendum happened, and more than anything we wanted to make sure it happened fairly. We have raised well over £9m and reached millions of people around this country.
What is clear now is that if we were to pursue a judicial review, according to legal experts, we would win. But this is a time to take a step back from the matter, and after consulting with leading campaigners on this issue, including UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage – we have decided to show the public how this process was stitched up, but not to pursue the judicial review any further.
It is time to turn our collective guns on the real opponents in this campaign: those who are repeatedly trying to scare the British public into thinking that Britain is too small and insignificant to be an independent nation engaged with the whole world, not just one corner of it. We will be pursuing this campaign with vigour – and we’ll have some fun with it along the way.
Passed by 482 infavour and 146 against including all uk meps against. Yes that is democracy but that now makes 73 times tge uk (and others) have opposed the parliment and 73 times failed. Its not a suprise as the uk only has around 8% of the vote so without help it will never be enough to change anything.
"all uk meps against." - I've got to say, from the various media portrayals, a whole bunch of UK MEP's supposedly didn't vote on things out of the principle of hating the EU and just take it's money?
This is why this whole thing is so frikking irritating for me now. I just want a non BS-ey thing to tell me what's going on.
If the general level of ignorance on how EU institutions work is anything to go by, having EU education in schools is a bloody good idea.
Civics is always a worthwhile subject.
And Silver, yes. Farage spends ages banging on about how the fisheries committee had screwed the UK. Well he was on it, and he barely ever showed up, let alone contributed. And he missed most of the votes.
Da Boss wrote: And Silver, yes. Farage spends ages banging on about how the fisheries committee had screwed the UK. Well he was on it, and he barely ever showed up, let alone contributed. And he missed most of the votes.
Seems like there's a good chunk of folk still undecided, with Leave and Remain pretty much neck and neck at present. So sadly, I guess it does need to trundle on a bit longer.
Still pessimistic for Remain though - Leave has more energy and passion.
Da Boss wrote: Seems like there's a good chunk of folk still undecided, with Leave and Remain pretty much neck and neck at present. So sadly, I guess it does need to trundle on a bit longer.
Still pessimistic for Remain though - Leave has more energy and passion.
I suspect you'll probably disagree, but I don't think the remain side will EVER win the EU argument.
By winning, I don't just mean winning the referendum, but winning the argument, making the case for Europe.
For example, the IN voters I spoke to have no great enthusiasm for the EU, but they're worried about the risks of leaving.
Basically, their argument boils down to the EU is rubbish, but we don't like change!
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, and I think that pretty much sums up Britain's opinion of the EU/EEC these past 40 years.
As they often do, my views align with Jeremy Corbyn (broadly).
The EU needs reform, but we're better off with it (or at least some form of supra-national European body) rather than without it.
I've been following a German thinker Prof Ulrike Guérot who like myself is an ardent integrationist. She's been working in the EU for years and believes that the current set up is dysfunctional as it is ceding too much power to centralized national governments to torpedo co-operation for narrow domestic political gain. At the same time, these central governments neglect their various regional areas where voters are disaffected and feel a deficit of democracy.
Her solution is a reformation of Europe as a region based republic, where all citizens are fundamentally equal under the law. Big central powers would be dissolved into smaller local regiosn (eg. the UK into Scotland, Norn Iron, Wales and perhaps a couple of chunks of England) where accountable local government would attend to local needs. Larger issues (eg. foreign policy) would be dealt with by a more democratically accountable federal parliament.
The current system is a bodge job trying to do too much at once and stangled by national interests. I find her ideas really interesting and exciting and I'm eagerly awaiting her book's translation to English so I can have a proper read of it.
But I think the case for Remain is actually equally ambitious and exciting as the case for Leave - it's just that you have to believe that change in Europe is possible, and that further integration is desirable. If you don't agree with that, then I believe the choice to vote to Leave is sensible and I respect it.
My main point of argument is when people tell lies about the EU to further their agenda.
TBF I agree with her that " her government’s decision did not amount to a verdict on whether the comedian was guilty or not, but should be understood as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s independence. "
.. BUt at the same time surely the fact that " prosecutions for insults against organs or representatives of foreign states requires both a notification from the offended party and an authorisation from the government.
Merkel confirmed reports that there had been disagreements on the Böhmermann affair between the foreign ministry, interior ministry, justice ministry and her own office."
and
" The chancellor also announced that she considered the paragraph of the German legal code that had allowed the Turkish president to request the prosecution to be “unnecessary”, and that legal steps would be taken towards scrapping it."
would strongly suggest there really is no case to be had here.
On the plus side if the Turkish govt. gets money out of this then the entirety of TRump's campaign suddenly becomes very clear.
Her solution is a reformation of Europe as a region based republic, where all citizens are fundamentally equal under the law. Big central powers would be dissolved into smaller local regiosn (eg. the UK into Scotland, Norn Iron, Wales and perhaps a couple of chunks of England) where accountable local government would attend to local needs. Larger issues (eg. foreign policy) would be dealt with by a more democratically accountable federal parliament
In a nutshell, that paragraph, and similar paragraphs written by other people, is why I'm voting to leave. Why does the EU need its own foreign policy? Who gets to decide what central powers are dissolved into smaller chunks
I don't deny that the EU has done good over the years, and I share your dislike of people telling lies about the EU for political gain.
BUT
Why is the EU pushing further and further into more integration?
In this global world, a loose trading alliance with co-operation on security, environmental issues etc etc makes perfect sense to me.
If that option was on the table, I'd vote for it any day of the week.
But it's not, and the push to this United States of Europe is why I could never vote to stay in.
Da Boss wrote: As they often do, my views align with Jeremy Corbyn (broadly).
The EU needs reform, but we're better off with it (or at least some form of supra-national European body) rather than without it.
I've been following a German thinker Prof Ulrike Guérot who like myself is an ardent integrationist. She's been working in the EU for years and believes that the current set up is dysfunctional as it is ceding too much power to centralized national governments to torpedo co-operation for narrow domestic political gain. At the same time, these central governments neglect their various regional areas where voters are disaffected and feel a deficit of democracy.
Her solution is a reformation of Europe as a region based republic, where all citizens are fundamentally equal under the law. Big central powers would be dissolved into smaller local regiosn (eg. the UK into Scotland, Norn Iron, Wales and perhaps a couple of chunks of England) where accountable local government would attend to local needs. Larger issues (eg. foreign policy) would be dealt with by a more democratically accountable federal parliament.
The current system is a bodge job trying to do too much at once and stangled by national interests. I find her ideas really interesting and exciting and I'm eagerly awaiting her book's translation to English so I can have a proper read of it.
But I think the case for Remain is actually equally ambitious and exciting as the case for Leave - it's just that you have to believe that change in Europe is possible, and that further integration is desirable. If you don't agree with that, then I believe the choice to vote to Leave is sensible and I respect it.
My main point of argument is when people tell lies about the EU to further their agenda.
Do you think reform can happen?
Would NI be separate under such a reformation? Part of the mainland? part of Eire?
Want about the Basques? Would Spain agree to something that is ingrained to be anathema - a separate state?
What about smaller nations? Maybe Belgium or Luxembourg would be better being absorbed?
IMO a major shift in direction and a cataclysmic shift in attitude would be needed for reform.
Yes, I think reform can happen. It's happened before and it can happen again.
NI would no doubt be separate under such a reform. Just part of itself. And the country is called Ireland, if you're going to call it by it's Gaelic name at least spell it right - Eire is the word for "burden" in Gaelic.
It is an ideal solution for the problem of regionalism in Spain.
Like I say, it's a proposed reform that I support.t I don't see it happening in the next 10 years - it will require a lot of patient campaigning, and the current establishment would have piles to lose from it in particular.
I don't want a federal Republic, and I resent the way that the EU is being stealthily transformed into a republic, bit by bit. I suspect that aifnEuropean bureaucrats ever declared their true aims and sought a Democratic mandate from European voters INA referendum, their plans for a republic would be outrivht rejected.
Just look at the problems they had passing the European Constitution.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't want a federal Republic, and I resent the way that the EU is being stealthily transformed into a republic, bit by bit. I suspect that aifnEuropean bureaucrats ever declared their true aims and sought a Democratic mandate from European voters INA referendum, their plans for a republic would be outrivht rejected.
Just look at the problems they had passing the European Constitution.
Politicians in every sphere rely on apathy.
Why should they tell the people what the end game of the EU is when they damn well know that most people wont or really don't care enough to find out (until its done).
It goes for those peddling lies about the negative associations of the EU too.
Having sat this one out but have made up my mind which way to vote so all set for the 23rd. I was walking up my local high street yesterday with my wife and pushing 5 month old along quite happily when I spy a labour stand and was approached by a guy with a hand of leaflets who seemed a bit over keen to tell me his view, yes it was the in camp.
Politely said no thanks was kind of left alone which was nice but while later walking back along the same street could hear it all kicking off, as far as I could see a guy from the labour stand was stood chin to chin with a chap shouting at each other over the in -out vote causing people to stop and watch. Didn't take long before 3 of the guys were stood around this single guy and the store guards were stood at the doors ready in case it got worse.
So while not trying to blame either side in my post, it had got very uncomfortable to see as it really did look like fists were going to fly and not just by the guy who was collard by the labour people. So I can understand that it really is a touchy subject at the moment but has anyone else seen this where they live. Being used to seeing chavs and thugs around town it was more the reaction of the labour stand that shocked me the most particularly the same guy that tried to grab me. He was almost ready to punch this guy out, that's how it looked anyway. Pretty sad if this is anything to go by
xKillGorex wrote: Having sat this one out but have made up my mind which way to vote so all set for the 23rd. I was walking up my local high street yesterday with my wife and pushing 5 month old along quite happily when I spy a labour stand and was approached by a guy with a hand of leaflets who seemed a bit over keen to tell me his view, yes it was the in camp.
Politely said no thanks was kind of left alone which was nice but while later walking back along the same street could hear it all kicking off, as far as I could see a guy from the labour stand was stood chin to chin with a chap shouting at each other over the in -out vote causing people to stop and watch. Didn't take long before 3 of the guys were stood around this single guy and the store guards were stood at the doors ready in case it got worse.
So while not trying to blame either side in my post, it had got very uncomfortable to see as it really did look like fists were going to fly and not just by the guy who was collard by the labour people. So I can understand that it really is a touchy subject at the moment but has anyone else seen this where they live. Being used to seeing chavs and thugs around town it was more the reaction of the labour stand that shocked me the most particularly the same guy that tried to grab me. He was almost ready to punch this guy out, that's how it looked anyway. Pretty sad if this is anything to go by
'Campaigners' are now 'activists'. Campaigners were intelligent and passionate. Activists are somewhat more aggressive. It's strange as they are generally one and the same but I think that there is an upsurge in support and many more willing boots on the round. The more you get the more chance you get of having those whose passion gets the better of them.
I will say, from my observations of being a former local campaigner for Labour, that creeping in is a form of ugly activism where 'you are with us or against us' is a mantra turned into a pseudo absolute rule - to the point of petty name calling, shunning and malicious activity being used. More and more common are those who believe that if you are against everything that comes out of 'Millbank' you must 'hate freedom and want babies to die because you hate the NHS'. (paraphrasing part of a rant that was thrown in my direction).
I will stick my neck out that Labour is relying more and more on pure receptacles for their propaganda, whether they know it or not. I can honestly say that the majority of campaigners I have seen over the last 3-4 years have not had an independent thought between them.
It did seem over the top on both sides. I do wonder how many people were stood there thinking it was a joke to watch and then won't bother to vote as they see it as a whole circus.
A shame really as something that could bring around change either way making it better is turning out like this. But yeah it seems people are offended by the fact that others have a different view but see their own as the only valied view.
Da Boss wrote: .....Still pessimistic for Remain though - Leave has more energy and passion.
The SNP had energy and passion too, that didn't do them any good during their referendum. People like the idea of high ideals, but when the crunch comes, they often prefer stability when it comes to their future, and that of their children. Only the idealogical, or those with nothing to lose are willing to gamble on such stakes. The only thing that concerns me is that remain is able to ensure that enough people get down to the polling station to ensure that more than a minority of ideologically motivated people are dictating the future direction of the UK. It is much harder to motivate the average UK voter than should be the case. I am going to be banging my drum locally to make sure that every eligible voter of any stripe turns up on the day to place their X in the ballot box. I don't want to see our nation hosed on the backs of a minority decision.
Also, a handful of highly vocal people on a wargaming forum does not reflect the general consensus of the UK population.
However, In or out, I hope that the UK weather's whatever comes out of this referendum. It will inevitably have serious consequences either way.
I still have the theory that if a sufficiently well known politician with sufficient money and Resources where to try to put in neutral pros and cons style list together that was factually accurate and then as an extra, separate comment put down for what size they were leaning towards while still acknowledging the other side's points, could end up gathering so much influence in the UK.
Curious to know the accuracy of this information. If accurate, what kind of benefits does GB enjoy as part of the EU that they wouldn't be able to have as a non member?
The European court of justice pre-dates the EU, so even if the UK leaves the EU, we're still stuck with it.
Even if immigrants require health insurance before using the NHS, they'll still cost the NHS money, because no doctor will refuse to treat an immigrant in need of emergency treatment.
Fishing is a dead end to be honest, as the fish stocks have hit rock bottom levels, and due to environmental concerns, a UK free from the EU might still have to cut back on fishing.
As for farming, according to a farming friend of mine, the UK wouldn't be better or worse off if we left the EU as we would be able to sell our produce to anybody, and consumers will benefit from cheap imports from the rest of the world. His opinion, not mine.
My reason for wanting out of the EU is purely democratic, but from what I've read of the economic argument, Britain would be fine if we left the EU.
It wouldn't be the land of milk and honey as portrayed by the BREXIT side, but the IN camp's end of the world scenario if Britain leaves, doesn't hold much water either.
The law one is -- shock ! -- somewhat misleading as there's several bodies we'd still be signed up to that can and do override UK laws -- the ECHR being one of them for example.
The British govt. is falling over itself to sign up to TTIP, and seeing as it's largely being pushed from t'other side of the Atlantic..well.....
We could indeed renegotiate trade deals with the EU, however by law we couldn't do so for most items -- a wee bit over 4,500 items -- for about 2 years after leaving -- that's an agreed penalty in the legislation. In the meantime our products would be subject to higher tariffs, and of course there is no guarantee that we'd be able to negotiate any deal at all, let a lone a better one.
One would suggest that would take some time too yes ?
The NHS one is so random in its claims it's basically nonsense. EU citizens treatment is -- in theory -- refunded by their home nation and of course quite a lot of EU immigrants work in the NHS.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The European court of justice pre-dates the EU, so even if the UK leaves the EU, we're still stuck with it.
Not necessarily. Isn't joining the ECHR a condition of EU membership? Therefore, does it not follow that leaving the EU would make it easier to withdraw from the ECHR?
Even if immigrants require health insurance before using the NHS, they'll still cost the NHS money, because no doctor will refuse to treat an immigrant in need of emergency treatment.
I think its morally wrong to deny emergency life saving treatment to anybody, regardless of immigration status or health insurance. I don't think that should change, and I don't think its a factor. We're not discussing emergency treatment when we're discussing health tourism. You don't suffer life threatening injuries in a car crash, then hop on a plane to be treated in a British hospital.
Fishing is a dead end to be honest, as the fish stocks have hit rock bottom levels, and due to environmental concerns, a UK free from the EU might still have to cut back on fishing.
Don't we have the Spanish to thank for that? At least if we withdraw from the EU, we can bar foreign fishing fleets from our waters and restrict British fishing quotas to buy time for fish stocks to replenish without the threat of over-fishing.
As for farming, according to a farming friend of mine, the UK wouldn't be better or worse off if we left the EU as we would be able to sell our produce to anybody, and consumers will benefit from cheap imports from the rest of the world. His opinion, not mine.
At least the CAP wouldn't apply to British farmers anymore.
My reason for wanting out of the EU is purely democratic, but from what I've read of the economic argument, Britain would be fine if we left the EU.
It wouldn't be the land of milk and honey as portrayed by the BREXIT side, but the IN camp's end of the world scenario if Britain leaves, doesn't hold much water either.
I want to leave the EU because I forsee it evolving over the next couple of decades into something very ugly and distinctly anti-democratic.
Fishing is a total mess. Our waters are over-fished while EU quotas result in good catches being dumped over the side dead.
The immigration thing about the brexit winds me up because leaving the EU won't do a thing to change it, that isn't where the political will lies. New Labour let immigrants flood in and the Tories only do lip service to halting it. Both governments are only interested in supplying industry with cheap labour and that won't change with leaving the EU, the Tories want high immigration. Successive governments have used the EU as a scape goat for blaming high immigration whereas in fact they promote it. Immigration puts pressures on our health, welfare and education system. We don't have a problem with employment being filled, people are being forced to take part time jobs and zero hour contracts because full time jobs are actually in demand.
Unemployment isn't much worse than the lowest wages in these jobs, that's damning of the wages in this country, not the welfare state. Stop over supplying the workforce and depressing wages. But again, the government blame the unemployed for the cost of supporting them and seek to cut welfare. Limit immigration and give people a significantly better minimum wage. Tax credits are also a subsidy to businesses to pay low wages, again a much higher minimum wage would mean that employers pay more and the public purse pays less to prop up these low wages.
The government, Labour and Tory, won't change because they both serve big business, that's why our public services are privatised and national industries (steel, coal) are allowed to go to ruin. That's why I don't believe the propaganda that comes out of the government now, they want to stay in the EU and keep the gravy train going for corporations instead of looking at the public. But equally, they'll cut our throats of we leave, they'll not do a damn thing about immigration or the loss of our industries and instead go for workers' rights to cut the costs mounted by unemployment.
I had no idea that Europe already had a free trade block, I guess I’ve never been told about it due to being part of the EU which offers the same and a little more, but it does put paid to the IN sides claims that tariffs would come to our exports.
OK, so this doesn’t cover everything. The fact that it doesn’t cover the service industry, where the majority are employed, is something to note – but all them claims about being unable to export our goods to Europe were clearly lies.
OK, so this doesn’t cover everything. The fact that it doesn’t cover the service industry, where the majority are employed, is something to note – but all them claims about being unable to export our goods to Europe were clearly lies.
Who's said that Britain would be unable to export goods to Europe? Are you honestly making a strawman in the same breath that you're accusing people of lying?
Except in order to get that kind of free trade deal with the EU we would have to comply with all EU regulations on those goods and services anyway.
We would also have no say in what those regulations are.
Canada has been trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU for 7 years and it is still not in place. All of those with them in place (Norway, Switzerland etc.) also have to contribute financially to the EU as part of the agreement, which is right there in the article.
So we could leave the EU, negotiate for years to get a free trade agreement and end up having to abide by EU laws and regulations which we now have no say in whilst still having to pay into the EU. And during all that time we have to pay import tariffs etc.
Or we could just stay in the EU and keep getting all that stuff without having to wait years for a deal to be negotiated.
Unfortunately, we'd also be signing up to being the British province of the United Empire of Europe.
Economics be damned, it can be argued one way or the other depending on what branch of economics you follow. Economics and trade come and go. Sometimes the country is poorer, sometimes it is richer. The market adjusts. Sometimes you are in boom, sometimes you are in bust.
It's all just an irrelevant obfuscatory smokescreen to distract from the intended gradual European usurpation of sovereignty (as detailed in the Five Presidents report).
We got an insight to the sort of trade deal the leave campaign would like to secure for Britain outside the EU this morning when Michael Gove said: "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to … after we vote to leave we will remain in this zone."
He went on to say: "By being part of that free trade zone we would have full access to the European market but we would be free from EU regulation."
This may be Michael Gove's hope, but it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to deliver in reality.
Assume "the European market" means the countries of the European continent. As Mr Gove says, excluding Russia and Belarus they are all part of a "free trade area" of sorts.
However, that is not one homogenous block but a mixture of agreements with varying conditions.
At its heart is the 'single market' of 28 member states of the EU.
Then there is the European Economic Area, a deal between Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and the European Union.
Switzerland has its own bi-lateral agreement with the EU because its people rejected membership of the EEA in a referendum.
Turkey is part of a customs union. Other European states included in Mr Gove's definition, like Ukraine, also have bi-lateral deals with the EU.
All have required concessions from their members in order to do a deal.
The EEA deal with the EU came in on January 1st 1994 and effectively expands the single market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - we could call this "full access".
But in return they accepted EU regulations and its so-called four freedoms - the free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Switzerland's agreement also requires the free movement of people but has less access for the services industry, a vital part of the UK's economy.
To achieve his goal of "full access" but no "EU regulation" from Iceland to the Russian border Mr Gove would have to come to a deal with the EU, the EEA and a number of European countries outside the EU, notably Switzerland.
Stephen Booth, co-director of think tank Open Europe, said: "The term free trade is a misnomer. What we're really talking about is preferential trade. It's about: 'You can have access to our market in return for access to yours'
"If you want preferential access the only way to do that is through a negotiation and a negotiation is a two-way street. You're not going to get something for nothing."
We can assume a deal for "full access" to the EU market will be impossible without concessions on either EU regulation or the free movement of people, or both.
The German and French governments have made it clear being in the single market means free movement of people, for example.
We could have freedom from EU regulation under World Trade Organisation rules but we can expect EU tariffs on our goods - not free access.
It is perfectly reasonable to assume the EU and other European countries would want to do trade deals with the UK but there is no reason to believe the UK can expect special treatment.
Reality check verdict: Full access with no regulation may be Mr Gove's hope but it looks impossible to deliver in practice.
Who's said that Britain would be unable to export goods to Europe? Are you honestly making a strawman in the same breath that you're accusing people of lying?
Apologies - I should have been clearer, I meant being able to trade without the need to pay fees.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except in order to get that kind of free trade deal with the EU we would have to comply with all EU regulations on those goods and services anyway.
We would also have no say in what those regulations are.
Canada has been trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU for 7 years and it is still not in place. All of those with them in place (Norway, Switzerland etc.) also have to contribute financially to the EU as part of the agreement, which is right there in the article.
So we could leave the EU, negotiate for years to get a free trade agreement and end up having to abide by EU laws and regulations which we now have no say in whilst still having to pay into the EU. And during all that time we have to pay import tariffs etc.
Or we could just stay in the EU and keep getting all that stuff without having to wait years for a deal to be negotiated.
Apparently, and I only heard of this yesterday from the BBC, but from looking around the internet it does appear to be true. There is already a free trade agreement in place for Europe, so we don't need to negotiate for this, we already have it. To highlight the important bit "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to … after we vote to leave we will remain in this zone."
Now as I said, this only covers good, if we want to trade services then yes this will need to be negotiated. I'd add there is no certainty that this negotiation would require us to accept ALL EU regulations, look at some other big economies out there and they have trade deals with Europe that do not require them to accept all EU laws*, but for goods we don't even need to negotiate this as it's already in place.
* South Korea - the 6th largest economy in the world - has a free trade agreement with the EU that does not require them to pay into the EU purse, nor accept all their rules and regulations. As the 5th largest economy it's more likely we'd get a deal similar to this than to that used by Norway or Switzerland.
Who's said that Britain would be unable to export goods to Europe? Are you honestly making a strawman in the same breath that you're accusing people of lying?
Apologies - I should have been clearer, I meant being able to trade without the need to pay fees.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Except in order to get that kind of free trade deal with the EU we would have to comply with all EU regulations on those goods and services anyway.
We would also have no say in what those regulations are.
Canada has been trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU for 7 years and it is still not in place. All of those with them in place (Norway, Switzerland etc.) also have to contribute financially to the EU as part of the agreement, which is right there in the article.
So we could leave the EU, negotiate for years to get a free trade agreement and end up having to abide by EU laws and regulations which we now have no say in whilst still having to pay into the EU. And during all that time we have to pay import tariffs etc.
Or we could just stay in the EU and keep getting all that stuff without having to wait years for a deal to be negotiated.
Apparently, and I only heard of this yesterday from the BBC, but from looking around the internet it does appear to be true. There is already a free trade agreement in place for Europe, so we don't need to negotiate for this, we already have it. To highlight the important bit "There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to … after we vote to leave we will remain in this zone."
Now as I said, this only covers good, if we want to trade services then yes this will need to be negotiated. I'd add there is no certainty that this negotiation would require us to accept ALL EU regulations, look at some other big economies out there and they have trade deals with Europe that do not require them to accept all EU laws*, but for goods we don't even need to negotiate this as it's already in place.
* South Korea - the 6th largest economy in the world - has a free trade agreement with the EU that does not require them to pay into the EU purse, nor accept all their rules and regulations. As the 5th largest economy it's more likely we'd get a deal similar to this than to that used by Norway or Switzerland.
And a free trade agreement with the United States (without the EU) isn't out of the question either. We have free trade agreements with Canada and Australia. It shouldn't be difficult to put together one that would benefit the United Kingdom.
Just wondering how my fellow dakka members are coping so far.
If we leave the EU, a black hole will destroy earth, the world's economy will collapse, and Accrington Stanley will win the European Cup or something, and David Icke will be made Prime Minister
Now we've got five days worth of the Americans lecturing us on what's good for the UK...
I lived through 2 years of this with the Scottish independence referendum, so I'm largely immune to it, but how's everybody else coping with the avalanche of scare stories?
Of course theres a need.. you cant be a country without your own army/navy. The eu laws already override any of a members when required, the five president report shows there going for tax/finances.
they have a flag
an anthem a president and parliment
theres not much left before members become "regions" and the equivitant of local councils. A saying from my childhood springs to mind "slowly slowly catchy monkey" this is what is happening slowly but a piece at a time.
So, will there be a referendum in the end? To me, an outsider, it sounds like endless (and pointless) debates trying to prevent the whole thing from happening at all. When do you finally vote? Or is it like the US Primary, going on for months and months until everyone will get sick of it?
Ketara wrote:It's all just an irrelevant obfuscatory smokescreen to distract from the intended gradual European usurpation of sovereignty (as detailed in the Five Presidents report).
Linky! The Five Presidents Report is my main level of argument for Brexit. It's quite an eye opener and I don't want us, as a sovereign nation, to be going down that road. Teathered to an outdated way of doing things, hedged in, controlled, stamped and approved. The next pile of treaty changes that will rumble in will probably be aimed at building a full fiscal union. Also, as you quite rightly point out, economies come and go, money is made and lost, but we'll be fine. Leaving will not suddenly end things, it'll be more like turning the ship.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Just wondering how my fellow dakka members are coping so far.
If we leave the EU, a black hole will destroy earth, the world's economy will collapse, and Accrington Stanley will win the European Cup or something, and David Icke will be made Prime Minister
Now we've got five days worth of the Americans lecturing us on what's good for the UK...
I lived through 2 years of this with the Scottish independence referendum, so I'm largely immune to it, but how's everybody else coping with the avalanche of scare stories?
I vary between head shaking at stories such as this, furious at some of the stupid scare stories, exasperated by random oikophobic outbursts of stupidity (you can spot them - they usually blurt out things like: "but our government will turn into Big Brother/they didn't win the election/damn Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/SNP/Monster Raving Looney Party/etc and only the EU can save us!" Wonderful, lets hand off more power to a group of politicians that are harder to hold to account as well as a group of unelected bureaucrats), more anger at American meddling (feths sake, I'd like to see the reaction that any USian would have if their nation was attempting to sign up to an equivalent - there'd be a fething uproar), amusement (if we Leave, the UK will sink into the atlantic, just like atlantis!) and it makes me more determined. I'll probably put my pencil right through the ballot paper as I'll probably be pressing it too hard in anger, gritted teeth and all, trying to make a cross in the Leave box.
Did anyone else see 'Europe: Them and Us' last night (I think it was originally shown last week).
The history of bungling we had in dealing with Europe was astounding. I could remember most of it happening (post 80's) but to have the people in question recounting their PoV on it was as eye opening as it was maddening.
Neither side of politics was blameless; Thatcher's pushing through of a Treaty she hadn't read was up there with the Blair government giving away most of the family silver. Blair of course just smiled his way through it not seeing an issue.
It's on iplayer if anyone wants to annoy themselves tonight.
Skullhammer wrote: Of course theres a need.. you cant be a country without your own army/navy. The eu laws already override any of a members when required, the five president report shows there going for tax/finances. they have a flag an anthem a president and parliment theres not much left before members become "regions" and the equivitant of local councils. A saying from my childhood springs to mind "slowly slowly catchy monkey" this is what is happening slowly but a piece at a time.
You can be a country without a military. Costa Rica manages it, as do some others.
Ketara wrote:It's all just an irrelevant obfuscatory smokescreen to distract from the intended gradual European usurpation of sovereignty (as detailed in the Five Presidents report).
Linky! The Five Presidents Report is my main level of argument for Brexit. It's quite an eye opener and I don't want us, as a sovereign nation, to be going down that road. Teathered to an outdated way of doing things, hedged in, controlled, stamped and approved. The next pile of treaty changes that will rumble in will probably be aimed at building a full fiscal union. Also, as you quite rightly point out, economies come and go, money is made and lost, but we'll be fine. Leaving will not suddenly end things, it'll be more like turning the ship.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Just wondering how my fellow dakka members are coping so far.
If we leave the EU, a black hole will destroy earth, the world's economy will collapse, and Accrington Stanley will win the European Cup or something, and David Icke will be made Prime Minister
Now we've got five days worth of the Americans lecturing us on what's good for the UK...
I lived through 2 years of this with the Scottish independence referendum, so I'm largely immune to it, but how's everybody else coping with the avalanche of scare stories?
I vary between head shaking at stories such as this, furious at some of the stupid scare stories, exasperated by random oikophobic outbursts of stupidity (you can spot them - they usually blurt out things like: "but our government will turn into Big Brother/they didn't win the election/damn Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/SNP/Monster Raving Looney Party/etc and only the EU can save us!" Wonderful, lets hand off more power to a group of politicians that are harder to hold to account as well as a group of unelected bureaucrats), more anger at American meddling (feths sake, I'd like to see the reaction that any USian would have if their nation was attempting to sign up to an equivalent - there'd be a fething uproar), amusement (if we Leave, the UK will sink into the atlantic, just like atlantis!) and it makes me more determined. I'll probably put my pencil right through the ballot paper as I'll probably be pressing it too hard in anger, gritted teeth and all, trying to make a cross in the Leave box.
I'm waiting for the "Nigel Farage ate my hamster" headlines any day now
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Did anyone else see 'Europe: Them and Us' last night (I think it was originally shown last week).
The history of bungling we had in dealing with Europe was astounding. I could remember most of it happening (post 80's) but to have the people in question recounting their PoV on it was as eye opening as it was maddening.
Neither side of politics was blameless; Thatcher's pushing through of a Treaty she hadn't read was up there with the Blair government giving away most of the family silver. Blair of course just smiled his way through it not seeing an issue.
It's on iplayer if anyone wants to annoy themselves tonight.
Politicians are incompetent? Hold the front page
On a serious note, I'm not surprised New Labour gave the country away, but the Tories are just as bad. They talk the talk in the House of Commons, but when they reach Brussels, they usually roll up the white flag, David Cameron being a prime example of this.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: It's easy to talk the talk, when nobody really bothers with what you do in Brussels.
I've said it twice before on this thread, but it's worth saying a third time:
Ahead of his EU negotiations, David Cameron publicly declared that he was campaigning to stay IN, and that when he arrived in Brussels on the Thursday, he said he wanted it done by the Monday. In effect, he sabotaged his own bargaining position before the negotiations even started!
Without a shadow of a doubt, that has to be the worst negotiation position in human history. Horsegak from start to finish.
That example is evidence enough that Cameron is not fit to be Prime Minister. He is a lame duck, his days are numbered, and nothing of value will be lost when he leaves Number 10.
I came across an interesting video featuring the former Greek finance minister that resigned in the Greek bail out crisis. He states some interesting opinions about the European left and right, Brussels and a revelation of the nature of the Greek bailout.
I found it fairly interesting anyway.
Personally, I find it sickening that Europe is being handed to a new bunch of megalomaniacs a mere 70 years after ww2.
Fears of nationalism be damned. I would rather see the EU split up with all its great nations intact than see them melted down into the draconian superstate the 5 fuhrers dreamt up.
Change from within cannot happen when we are already seeing them overruling EU nations to further their goals. SO the only logical answer is to leave.
All that said, I still don't see leave winning tho. Humanity's irrational nature to accept and defend the status quo is not to be underestimated. No matter the consequences.
Cameron never had any intention of re-negotiating Britain's relationship with the EU. He's a Europhile, he likes the EU just the way it is and if he had his way, Britain would integrate even further. His so called "negotiations" were nothing more than a fig leaf, a smoke screen to placate Euro-sceptic voters and limit the voters being leached away by UKIP.
If we do vote to stay, we'll be voting for further integration, not the status quo.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Cameron never had any intention of re-negotiating Britain's relationship with the EU. He's a Europhile, he likes the EU just the way it is and if he had his way, Britain would integrate even further. His so called "negotiations" were nothing more than a fig leaf, a smoke screen to placate Euro-sceptic voters and limit the voters being leached away by UKIP.
If we do vote to stay, we'll be voting for further integration, not the status quo.
There is NO status quo.
True words. Whatever way the vote goes - Europe will have to change.
If Britain leaves, the shock will either topple the EU or allow the reformers to change it for the better.
If Britain stays, it's the green light for a United States of Europe.
I completely agree on there will be no status quo. I alluded to that with the consequences bit.
As I think I mentione earlier in this thread a victory for stay will without a doubt be twisted into support for further integration. Further integration the people "chose" and "voted for".
Dropbear Victim wrote: I completely agree on there will be no status quo. I alluded to that with the consequences bit.
As I think I mentione earlier in this thread a victory for stay will without a doubt be twisted into support for further integration. Further integration the people "chose" and "voted for".
As an Australian, you should be aware that your nation will be receiving a lot of criticism during this EU referendum. Why? Because the OUT campaign is using Australia as an example of what Britain could be outside the EU.
Predictably, the IN camp are portraying your good nation as a bunch of toothless simpletons who know nothing
Dropbear Victim wrote: I completely agree on there will be no status quo. I alluded to that with the consequences bit.
As I think I mentione earlier in this thread a victory for stay will without a doubt be twisted into support for further integration. Further integration the people "chose" and "voted for".
As an Australian, you should be aware that your nation will be receiving a lot of criticism during this EU referendum. Why? Because the OUT campaign is using Australia as an example of what Britain could be outside the EU.
Predictably, the IN camp are portraying your good nation as a bunch of toothless simpletons who know nothing
Oh really?
We really need to complete a long overdue prisoner exchange. For the colonists we received, you can have some koala broods. They'll naturalise to the UKs environment and the EU will get a nasty shock if it ever invades. A Koala makes no distinction between invading forces and tourists - their natural food source.
In the end, i think the problem is one of identity and loyalty.
Do you feel you belong to the club or not? Are you loyal to the club or not? All this democratic deficit talk often boils down to "someone is deciding over my head", and by that people often do not mean "someone who was not legitimized democratically" (which is in big parts (although not completely) untrue, since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU) but more plainly "someone I do not trust/identify with".
Counter-question:
Why should any Scotsman accept what David Cameron and his party majority decide in London? Surely, non of the SNP-followers voted for him! (Well, yes, I know, but I hope you get the meaning).
Why?
Because the (slight) majority of Scots believe sufficiently, that they belong to the UK (for whichever reason), together with the Welsh, the English, the Islanders and the Northern Irish. And because they identify, and because they nurture the belief that their interests are respected, they accept to be overruled, almost constantly, and hope that the system can be changed from within.
Or at least, that leaving the UK would be worse.
So in the end it comes down to feely-feely, indeed. Do you like to be European and suffer the downsides or do you prefer to be British only and suffer the downsides?
Since we do not know what is worse, until you tried, maybe it is time you did.
- Just as the Scots should have tried.
And if you suffer badly then maybe you will come back, maybe even with a clearer idea of what the EU should or should not be, and maybe that will change the EU for better.
treslibras wrote: since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU)
treslibras wrote: since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU)
European Commission?
Well, what does the comission do in terms of decisions on changes or new competencies?
An interesting insight from William Hague in the Telegraph. Having been accused of euro-sceptism in the past, he offers an insight into the machinery of govt in the EU.
Perhaps not what you might expect....
First, I would note that British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues.
Obama is well within his rights to say that America's best interests are served by the UK in the EU. It would be a dereliction of duty for a American president not to say it. However, there's a fine line between saying this, and then visiting that country ahead of a crucial vote in a referendum.
Could you imagine a British Prime Minister in the USA this November telling American voters who to vote for? No, neither could I. Obama has crossed a line.
And since the US is our one indispensable ally, our biggest single trading partner and the ultimate guarantor of our security, its interests matter to everyone in Britain whether we like it or not.
A few months ago the Americans were saying that the French were their oldest ally.
As for the USA being the ultimate guarantor of our security...what a load of horsegak. You're embarrassing yourself now, Mr Hague.
This is partly because the UK plays a crucial role in ensuring the EU generally supports the objectives of the US and that there is usually transatlantic unity of action. When America needed strong sanctions to bring Iran to the nuclear negotiating table, Britain helped to make sure the whole EU adopted and implemented those sanctions. And without Britain to push for sanctions on Putin’s Russia when Crimea was invaded and annexed, the response of the EU would have been tremulously weak.
De Gaulle has been proven right - Britain is a Trojan horse for the USA. As for the Crimea, did I miss the bit where Russia annexed it or was it my imagination? As for Iran, I'm pretty sure non European nations were also involved.
In 2012, many EU states, led by France, made a determined push to set up an EU military headquarters. For the obvious reason that this would duplicate and potentially undermine Nato and in my capacity as the then foreign secretary, I strongly opposed it. I sat through the 12-hour meeting explaining that no British government would ever agree to it and then I vetoed it. Without the UK, it would have got through, and hands would have been wrung in Washington over the expensive and divisive results.
75% of spending in NATO is from the USA - this won't last for ever. I'm opposed to the creation of an EU military, but sooner or later, European nations are going to have to crank up defence spending, because America won't foot the bill forever.
None of this is to suggest that Britain is a permanent agent of the US, constantly subverting European ideas
Um, you've just spent most of the article saying otherwise!
A further reason why the President should feel free to speak out is that the last thing America, or the West in general, needs over the next few years is a self-inflicted bout of introversion and instability
Agreed. The more people feel cut of from the democratic process, the more likely we'll see mass unrest and riots on the streets of Europe. A united states of Europe which sees ordinary people feeling detached from the elites, will only help to create instability.
but their biggest concern would be the years of effort diverted by their main allies into a long and very painful attempt to negotiate a new relationship.
Never underestimate the effect of pragmatism and realpolitik to make things happen quickly. You would think a former foreign secretary would know this.
The message coming back from American embassies across Europe will be sobering: don’t expect Britain to strike any easy deal any time soon with the EU if it votes to leave. Anyone who has seen government from the inside knows how much energy would be drained from dealing with all the other economic and security challenges in London, Paris and Berlin.
Translation: politicians like myself will now have to work for a living instead of outsourcing it to the EU.
Whatever we think about Europe, the fact that a vote to leave would be such bad news for our closest allies should be a material factor in deciding how to vote.
To paraphrase a well known American: Britain has no allies, only interests.
treslibras wrote: since you voted for the EU parliamentarians and for your national government, and the EU parliament and the EU councils are the only institutions that can decide on changes/new competencies of the EU)
European Commission?
Well, what does the comission do in terms of decisions on changes or new competencies?
The Commission does most of it, neither the Parliament or Council have the power of legislative initiative (in general, there's a bit more to it than that).
The Commission does most of it, neither the Parliament or Council have the power of legislative initiative (in general, there's a bit more to it than that).
Yes, so they have no decision power at all. They have the right of proposals - but those are most often pre-negotiated with or even directly coming from high functionaries of the nation states, i.e. most governements knows about them.
A lot of them are issued after a European council (the big chatting round of the EU heads of state you regularly see on TV). Coincidence? Every now and again, the commission puts out unsolicited proposals, and these go a long way before they are either dumped or decided upon by..? Yes, by your (and mine) MEP - depending on field of matter, in conjunction with, without or only by the council of ministers (that is, the national ministers).
And in cases where the treaties are changed (such as a widening of competencies), this EU law needs then to be ratified by each member state, usually by national parliamentary vote. Only if all states ratify, it will come into effect.
Member states may hold referenda, if they so want, as the Dutch just did for the association treaty with the Ukraine.
(Which was super effective, btw, in so far as it showed that roughly 10% of Dutch people do not want Ukraine to become a part of Europe, 10 % wanted to show the finger to their government, 10% showed their support for Ukraine, and 67% of the Dutch voters did not give a damn at all and stayed home ).
-------
Now, if you are talking about things that your heads of states from Maggie Thatcher to David Cameron have given over to the EC and later EU, that is whole other issue. And yes, the commission agencies have shown again and again that they are just as unsuitable to tangle important issues then your national ministries. (health issues, for example, search for the arte documentation on the EFSA, for example the statements on Aspartam ("Of course we had to deny the validity of the study, otherwise we would have been forced to withdraw it from the market immediately! Do you know, what the economic repercussions would have been?").
And yes, I agree that subsidiarity is being undermined on a regular base because the heads of state prefer it that way. But again, that is a problem of the national governments first, and a problem of overzealous European institutions second. As long as we cannot control our own governments directly, I am happy to have at least a second parliamentary body that tries to do that. If you are not, your choice.
Brexit and the small UK wargames business
Whatever your views on the forthcoming EU referendum, whether you’re in favour or remaining in the EU or of leaving (Brexit), there are some quite simple repercussions of Brexit for the small UK wargames business – and it’s all to do with tax and tax collection.
There are two types of small UK wargames business: those that are not registered for value added tax (VAT), and those that are registered for VAT. As is apparent on wargames forums, the difference between a VAT-registered business and a non-registered business is not widely understood. The ones that are registered for VAT are in general larger: UK businesses must register for VAT if their annual turnover is more than £83,000. The consequence of that is that a VAT-registered wargames business must charge 20% VAT on toy soldiers for sales within the EU.
Currently, the free trade arrangement within the EU allows both types of small wargames business to trade without further tax or tax collection charges being imposed for selling into another country. For non-VAT businesses there is simply no tax to collect; for VAT-registered businesses, tax is charged in the UK at 20% and is collected on behalf of HMRC by the business.
Brexit would change that by bringing in a tax frontier simply for VAT. This is regardless of any trade agreements and ability to set extra tariffs and duties on products that independence from the EU might bring for Brexit UK. It will happen simply because VAT exists across the EU, and VAT in the EU will not go away just because the UK leaves.
Brexit UK may well remain part of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), like Norway, but Norway provides the prime example of how VAT would work in the UK for any small wargames business trading with the rest of the EU.
Currently, any VAT-registered wargames business selling to Norway removes the 20% UK VAT from its prices and dispatches an order with a customs declaration about order value on the front of the package. Depending on the value of the order, Norway may charge VAT at 25% plus a tax collection charge of NOK 140 (just under £12). VAT kicks in on orders of NOK 350 (about £29.70) for orders sent by post, and VAT and the tax collection charge add 39% to the cost of an order of that size (source: www.tollsjekk.no).
A £29.70 ex-tax order is equivalent to an order value of £35.64 inc VAT in the UK; however, with Norwegian VAT and tax collection fees it becomes equivalent to £41.34, or £5.70 more expensive compared with the same order to a UK customer.
For a non-VAT-registered UK business, the comparative price is worse. There is no tax to deduct on export to Norway, so the apparent price hike is from £29.70 to £41.34, a difference of £11.64. The same situation happens in the UK, by the way: UK wargamers importing from the USA, for example, should find that Royal Mail charges £8 for collecting import VAT, on an order value threshold of just £15.
Although the same value of goods is bought from the non-VAT-registered UK business as from the VAT-registered business, the apparent tax hike for the order from the non-registered business looks much worse to the Norwegian customer.
Post-Brexit, how the UK trades with EU countries will work exactly the same way as trade with Norway at present. All products from wargames businesses in the UK will appear more expensive not necessarily because of a major difference in the VAT rate – many major EU countries have a VAT rate of 19% to 22%, similar to the UK’s 20% – but because of the tax collection fee, once an order passes the low import tax threshold.
Of course, it is possible to send a parcel to Norway without it attracting tax: it simply has to be below the import tax threshold. What this does in practice is to limit the size of orders from Norway, to the extent that to be safe almost no wargamer in Norway orders more than £22 ex-tax of goods at a time, according to Fighting 15s’ experience at least. For any small wargames business that trades extensively with EU countries, the implication of having most orders to those countries reduced to values that slip under the typical import tax collection threshold of 15 to 22 euros is pretty horrifying.
The collection charge, of course, dilutes in effect as orders get bigger. On an order of NOK 1,000 (about £85 ex-tax of goods from a VAT-registered UK business, or £85 of zero-tax goods from a non-registered business), Norway’s import tax and duty come to only 28%, which doesn’t look much in percentage terms but gives the customer a £33 import tax bill on delivery, which can be off-putting. It still makes the equivalent order from a non-VAT-registered UK wargames business £33 more expensive.
Norway, of course, isn’t a major market for wargames figures. The effect of its VAT tax-frontier within the free-trade zone of the EU reduces order sizes from customers based there. The EU-wide market for wargames businesses, however, is much bigger.
Across the EU, import tax thresholds are low, typically 15 to 22 euros (additional duty based on the type of goods, by the way, typically doesn’t come in until an order reaches 150 euros). With import tax collection fees for VAT ramping up the cost of orders above these low values to EU countries, any UK wargames business – VAT-registered or not – that currently sells to the EU will be affected post Brexit. And non-VAT-registered UK wargames businesses will be worse off than VAT-registered ones because of the greater apparent price hike of import tax and tax collection fees.
Whether post-Brexit UK can set its own tax it won’t matter. The rest of the EU’s existing VAT system and import tax charges will simply come into effect, even for associated countries within the European Free Trade Area, and that’s what will penalise the ability of the small UK wargames business to sell to EU countries if Brexit comes to pass.
First, I would note that British leaders and commentators do not hesitate to hold forth on the foreign policy of the United States: a policy supported by David Cameron, attacked by Jeremy Corbyn, and denounced or questioned by many others with regard to the Middle East, defence spending, drone strikes, the handling of Cuba and scores of other issues.
Obama is well within his rights to say that America's best interests are served by the UK in the EU. It would be a dereliction of duty for a American president not to say it. However, there's a fine line between saying this, and then visiting that country ahead of a crucial vote in a referendum.
Could you imagine a British Prime Minister in the USA this November telling American voters who to vote for? No, neither could I. Obama has crossed a line.
And since the US is our one indispensable ally, our biggest single trading partner and the ultimate guarantor of our security, its interests matter to everyone in Britain whether we like it or not.
A few months ago the Americans were saying that the French were their oldest ally.
As for the USA being the ultimate guarantor of our security...what a load of horsegak. You're embarrassing yourself now, Mr Hague.
This is partly because the UK plays a crucial role in ensuring the EU generally supports the objectives of the US and that there is usually transatlantic unity of action. When America needed strong sanctions to bring Iran to the nuclear negotiating table, Britain helped to make sure the whole EU adopted and implemented those sanctions. And without Britain to push for sanctions on Putin’s Russia when Crimea was invaded and annexed, the response of the EU would have been tremulously weak.
De Gaulle has been proven right - Britain is a Trojan horse for the USA. As for the Crimea, did I miss the bit where Russia annexed it or was it my imagination? As for Iran, I'm pretty sure non European nations were also involved.
In 2012, many EU states, led by France, made a determined push to set up an EU military headquarters. For the obvious reason that this would duplicate and potentially undermine Nato and in my capacity as the then foreign secretary, I strongly opposed it. I sat through the 12-hour meeting explaining that no British government would ever agree to it and then I vetoed it. Without the UK, it would have got through, and hands would have been wrung in Washington over the expensive and divisive results.
75% of spending in NATO is from the USA - this won't last for ever. I'm opposed to the creation of an EU military, but sooner or later, European nations are going to have to crank up defence spending, because America won't foot the bill forever.
None of this is to suggest that Britain is a permanent agent of the US, constantly subverting European ideas
Um, you've just spent most of the article saying otherwise!
A further reason why the President should feel free to speak out is that the last thing America, or the West in general, needs over the next few years is a self-inflicted bout of introversion and instability
Agreed. The more people feel cut of from the democratic process, the more likely we'll see mass unrest and riots on the streets of Europe. A united states of Europe which sees ordinary people feeling detached from the elites, will only help to create instability.
but their biggest concern would be the years of effort diverted by their main allies into a long and very painful attempt to negotiate a new relationship.
Never underestimate the effect of pragmatism and realpolitik to make things happen quickly. You would think a former foreign secretary would know this.
The message coming back from American embassies across Europe will be sobering: don’t expect Britain to strike any easy deal any time soon with the EU if it votes to leave. Anyone who has seen government from the inside knows how much energy would be drained from dealing with all the other economic and security challenges in London, Paris and Berlin.
Translation: politicians like myself will now have to work for a living instead of outsourcing it to the EU.
Whatever we think about Europe, the fact that a vote to leave would be such bad news for our closest allies should be a material factor in deciding how to vote.
To paraphrase a well known American: Britain has no allies, only interests.
Like I said, any American president would have done the same, and at least Obama was honest enough to admit he was acting in the USA's best interests.
However, he should have done it from the White House and not turned up in the UK. It crossed a line in my book.
Now, I'm a regular feature on the US politics thread, and I freely give my opinion on US politics: Trump is a dangerous idiot, HRC is a crook, and Ted Cruz should be exiled to Alaska! But, at no point do I ever tell American dakka members who to vote for - that's not my place.
Obama could have handled it better.
On a separate note, it's quite sad how the referendum is panning out. I said it earlier, but this is what happened during the Scottish independence referendum - mud slinging and people fighting in the gutter, the big ideas of democracy etc going out the window.
I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.
And on the other side, the same opportunity exists for a vision to be presented of Britain going it alone and building a better nation for the 21st century.
Sadly, our politicians are A) unable to do this because they're incompetent or B) happy to let the debate be played out like this.
Either way, they're not fit to lead the people of Britain.
I think we should dispatch David Cameron to the USA a couple of months before the Presidential election to lecture Americans on how electing a war monger like Trump or Clinton to the White House wouldn't be in Britain's best interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.
The EU will never be reformed. There is no desire for reform in Europe's institutions, indeed quite the opposite. They like their gravy train too much. The only way the EU will ever be reformed is if they are forced to reform, and the only to achieve that is to blackmail them with a threat of a member state withdrawing. And even then, they'll just lie to us. Any "deal" and promise of future reform they give us is only temporary and easily vetoed by other member states with vested interests.
Interesting article. Since there are a lot of wargame editors in UK, I think that a Brexil would still hurt them. What is sure is that it will make the possibility of exporting nice UK games out of their main island a bit more difficult.
Playing a few games from companies only set in UK, it will become annoying for me in the case of a Brexit. But of course, nationalists wouldn't care about that. Fair game.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think we should dispatch David Cameron to the USA a couple of months before the Presidential election to lecture Americans on how electing a war monger like Trump or Clinton to the White House wouldn't be in Britain's best interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.
The EU will never be reformed. There is no desire for reform in Europe's institutions, indeed quite the opposite. They like their gravy train too much. The only way the EU will ever be reformed is if they are forced to reform, and the only to achieve that is to blackmail them with a threat of a member state withdrawing. And even then, they'll just lie to us. Any "deal" and promise of future reform they give us is only temporary and easily vetoed by other member states with vested interests.
Have the agreements won by Cameron been ratified yet? Or could they be kicked into the long grass once we vote in?
Meanwhile I've read that the German and Dutch armed forces are agreeing to some sort of merger. The unnecessary creep towards an EU army inches along.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think we should dispatch David Cameron to the USA a couple of months before the Presidential election to lecture Americans on how electing a war monger like Trump or Clinton to the White House wouldn't be in Britain's best interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm bitterly disappointed at the tone of the debate, because there is an opportunity for somebody to present a vision of the UK at the heart of the EU, reforming it and making it accountable to the people and fit for the 21st century and all its challenges.
The EU will never be reformed. There is no desire for reform in Europe's institutions, indeed quite the opposite. They like their gravy train too much. The only way the EU will ever be reformed is if they are forced to reform, and the only to achieve that is to blackmail them with a threat of a member state withdrawing. And even then, they'll just lie to us. Any "deal" and promise of future reform they give us is only temporary and easily vetoed by other member states with vested interests.
Have the agreements won by Cameron been ratified yet? Or could they be kicked into the long grass once we vote in?
Meanwhile I've read that the German and Dutch armed forces are agreeing to some sort of merger. The unnecessary creep towards an EU army inches along.
Germany is one of the few NATO nations not to hit the 2% of GDP on defence target that other nations have achieved, Britain being an example.
For historical reasons, I can understand the German reluctance, but if they pulled the finger out and increased spending, there would be no need for a merger, unless of course the merger goes beyond financial reasons...
Given that the USA accounts for 75% of the NATO budget, Europe really needs to reconsider its defence plans, as a future US president may decide to cut their loses, especially, with the focus being on the Pacific.
Even if Britain leaves the EU, Europe's big 3 (France, Germany, UK) should sit down and say, we can handle Russia in Europe if need be, lets increase defence spending, let the USA pull out, but with the option of America sending in the cavalry if the worst comes to the worst.
Such an arrangement I believe, would suit all parties concerned and allow the USA to focus on the Pacific.
Interesting article. Since there are a lot of wargame editors in UK, I think that a Brexil would still hurt them. What is sure is that it will make the possibility of exporting nice UK games out of their main island a bit more difficult.
Playing a few games from companies only set in UK, it will become annoying for me in the case of a Brexit. But of course, nationalists wouldn't care about that. Fair game.
We've all heard of British people making the trip to Calais for cheap wine and tobacco. Will we see the Europeans making the trip to Britain for cheap wargames?
Honestly, Mr Customs Man, this is a year's supply of plastic miniatures for me!
Surprise, surprise - Hilary Clinton backs Britain staying in the EU. Never seen that coming!
Normally, I'd be the first to stop Whembly from going on about Hilary Clinton again
but if there was ever a time for Whembly to provide links and sources showing Hilary's links to the EU, this is it!
Whembly, if you can hear us, Britain needs you!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: ....personal limit of 12 sprues or the equivilent number of blisters.
Not that I would take advantage of our European friends, but I spy an opportunity to make some cash!
I used to sell GW stuff to our Australian friends to help them avoid GW's Australian tax, and even factoring in postage costs and my 10% fee, everybody was happy, so I'm not to worried about BREXIT from this point of view.
In this case, it sounds like it's easy and of no real consequence for Britain. Sure, it will be annoying for people like me who still like UK wargames, but like I said, it's fair game.
I'm not so sure it will be so full of advantages for Britain, though. But that, only time will tell. I'm pretty sure than even if it goes really bad, the same people arguing for a Brexit will just say it was the fault of evil other countries/EU.
I have no issue with Obama telling us which way he'd prefer we vote. The man is looking out for American interests after all, it's his job.
If anything I feel a little sorry for him and rest of America. I didn't know you chaps were so hard up over in the American Foreign office that you couldn't negotiate more than one trade treaty at once. Clearly your economy must be diving as well, or you'd be able to hire a few more staff to deal with the 'queue'.
I'm sure that in the interests of charity, we could loan you gents a civil servant or two to help speed things along? Out of fond regard of that wonderful 'special relationship' and all that.
I think its bloody insulting for any foreign figures to be jetting in and interfering in our referendum to lecture us on how we should vote, whether its the POTUS in favour of Remain or Le Penn in favour of Leave.
By all means, speak your mind, but do it in your own fething country.
Its like David Cameron flying to the united states shortly before the next presidential campaign and lecturing Americans on xenophobia.
America has failed to finish negotiating a trade teaty with the EU in nearly 40 years. Iceland and America managed it in a decade.
It sounds to me that the EU is the deadweight we all know it is in that field. I'm sure they'll bee even more efficient now it's 28 (nee 27) nations championing their own interests.
How anyone with half a brain can listen to Obama on this issue and not see the flaws in PoV. Yes he's making the case for the US but he has also inadvertantly made the cause to leave for us. I honestly thought he was cleverer than than. Shame.
As for Clinton well she would be better off keeping an eye on her old man rather than us.
First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?
During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc
Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc
Funny how things turn, eh?
There's several differences. Scotland's economy was more likely to become an issue than not (and judging by the subsequent oil market, would definitely have been). Britain, on the other hand, is collectively the 5th largest economy in the world. So worries about the economy were a legitimate concern for the former, but making the sorts of announcements of doom Obama/Cameron are doing here are demonstrably false.
I hadn't even made my mind up until I saw that Five Presidents Report, so when it comes to economics of the matter, I'm reasonably neutral. It doesn't affect my opinion either way. If we leave, I estimate we'll be in for a rough bumpy ride of 3-5 years, economically speaking, but things will be okay assuming appropriate actions are taken by the government.
Cameron ahs clearly decided that if the fear strategy worked one time though, it should the second time, and the mor ehe talks about economics, the less he has to talk about immigration and sovereignty issues, and can pretend they don't exist.
First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?
During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc
Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc
Funny how things turn, eh?
There's several differences. Scotland's economy was more likely to become an issue than not (and judging by the subsequent oil market, would definitely have been). Britain, on the other hand, is collectively the 5th largest economy in the world. So worries about the economy were a legitimate concern for the former, but making the sorts of announcements of doom Obama/Cameron are doing here are demonstrably false.
I hadn't even made my mind up until I saw that Five Presidents Report, so when it comes to economics of the matter, I'm reasonably neutral. It doesn't affect my opinion either way. If we leave, I estimate we'll be in for a rough bumpy ride of 3-5 years, economically speaking, but things will be okay assuming appropriate actions are taken by the government.
Cameron ahs clearly decided that if the fear strategy worked one time though, it should the second time, and the mor ehe talks about economics, the less he has to talk about immigration and sovereignty issues, and can pretend they don't exist.
Cameron's a dead man walking. If it's BREXIT, he's out, and even if it's remain, he's alienated that many Tory MPs and Tory grassroots, a leadership challenge against him is inevitable.
I read that Stanley Baldwin in 1937 was the last Tory leader to leave on his own terms. Every Tory leader since then has resigned or been forced out. It doesn't bode well for Mr Cameron.
First and foremost, I'm not having a go at you guys, but how does it feel to be on the other side?
During the Scottish referendum, every man and his dog was saying we couldn't go it alone. Too small, too poor, wouldn't get the trade deals etc etc
Now every man and his dog is saying that Britain is too small, won't get the trade deals etc etc
Funny how things turn, eh?
For one, I think its a false equivalence. Scotland really is too small and poor to go it alone, but Scotland, England and Wales together? We did just fine, nay, we thribed as sn independent unified country for 3 centuries,
As for the Scottish referendum, I respected your democratic right to vote for and get independence and I would have wished you good luck, and I made that very clear in the Dakka Dakka thread. But as your countrymen we English had every right to voice our views and participate in the independence debate (albeit not the right to vote) because we would all have been directly affected.
Obama on the other hand is not our countryman, his country will not be directly affected and he has no right to directly intervene. By all means, he has every right to voice his opinion to American and British media in AMERICA, but to jet into Britain on an official visit to directly interfere in our national politics is an insult.
I think Cameron should jet into Washington to endorse Trump. We'll see how Obama likes that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for economics...the EU is a sinking ship. There are difficult times ahead of us whether we leave or stay. And when the next recession or depression comes along I'd rather not be chained at the hip to the EU.
His country will be directly affected. We live in a global economy. Destabilisation of the EU will have an impact on the USA.
Also, the entire point of visiting countries is to push the agenda that will best benefit your country and to attempt to influence the politics of that nation. Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!
As for the Scottish referendum, I respected your democratic right to vote for and get independence and I would have wished you good luck, and I made that very clear in the Dakka Dakka thread. But as your countrymen we English had every right to voice our views and participate in the independence debate (albeit not the right to vote) because we would all have been directly affected.
Fair point.
For what it's worth, I wasn't happy at the doom and gloom stories that came from the rest of the UK during the Scotland referendum, but because of the shared history we have, I always respected your right to voice that opinion.
Obama as you say, is different. He's a foreigner looking out for the interests of a foreign nation, which is his job, but I'm more annoyed at his comments on the EU than I ever was at comments from England, Wales, NI etc that said that Scotland couldn't go it alone.
And Obama stuck his nose in the Scottish referendum as well, so I'm double mad!
Back OT.
I've spoken to the people I know who are interested in politics, and the general consensus on Obama's comments is don't care/who is he to tell us what to do or it'll be forgotten about by June.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: His country will be directly affected. We live in a global economy. Destabilisation of the EU will have an impact on the USA.
Also, the entire point of visiting countries is to push the agenda that will best benefit your country or to attempt to influence the politics of that nation. Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!
IMO the impact is greatly exaggerated. Sure, a few stock brokers on Wall street might lose a few million here and there, and the economy might contract half a percentage point or something, but given the mess we've seen the last 15 years, I doubt if it could get worse.
A Town Called Malus wrote: His country will be directly affected. We live in a global economy. Destabilisation of the EU will have an impact on the USA.
Also, the entire point of visiting countries is to push the agenda that will best benefit your country and to attempt to influence the politics of that nation.
Which is all well and good, but to schedule an official visit during the election season or in the run up to a referendum is taking the mick. Do you think David Cameron should be flying to Washington right now and endorsing a Presidential candidate?
Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!
I never said that. I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign trying to directly influence the result. That is a gross interference in a country's national sovereignty.
Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!
I never said that. I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign trying to directly influence the result. That is a gross interference in a country's national sovereignty.
So when exactly should he comment on how America views the UK as being strongest and what affect leaving the EU will have on American/British relations? When the UK is not having a referendum (in which case there is no need to even mention it) or after the referendum when it makes absolutely no difference?
Political visits are entirely about messing in other countries affairs, that is their nature.
Should Cameron not press leaders in Saudi Arabia (amongst others) on human rights because it doesn't directly affect the UK? Hell no!
I never said that. I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign trying to directly influence the result. That is a gross interference in a country's national sovereignty.
So when exactly should he comment on how America views the UK as being strongest and what affect leaving the EU will have on American/British relations? When the UK is not having a referendum (in which case there is no need to even mention it) or after the referendum when it makes absolutely no difference?
Oh FFS. Read what I say.
I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign
He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.
Political visits are entirely about messing in other countries affairs, that is their nature.
Like I said, scheduling a political visit in the middle of a campaign season is pushing it too far. If he wants to voice his opinions on the British referendum, he can invite British press to the White House for a press conference.
I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign
He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.
How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.
I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign
He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.
How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.
Its entirely different. A single White House press conference is not the same thing as a 4 day long official State visit touring the UK and endorsing one side of a political campaign.
Like I said, its like David Cameron flying to Washington and endorsing a Presidential candidate. Do you think that would be acceptable?
I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign
He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.
How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.
Its entirely different. A single White House press conference is not the same thing as a 4 day long official State visit touring the UK and endorsing one side of a political campaign.
Like I said, its like David Cameron flying to Washington and endorsing a Presidential candidate. Do you think that would be acceptable?
Apart from a single press conference, what has Obama done to endorse remaining in the EU?
As far as I can tell he took questions on US politics and went to the theatre on Shakey's birthday.
I said foreign leaders should not jet in to a country in the middle of an election or referendum campaign
He can say whatever the feth he likes, whenever the feth he likes, to the media in America.
How exactly would the outcome of that be any different? The internet exists. All of the media companies in the UK would have picked up the story and ran with it. The end result is exactly the same.
Its entirely different. A single White House press conference is not the same thing as a 4 day long official State visit touring the UK and endorsing one side of a political campaign.
Like I said, its like David Cameron flying to Washington and endorsing a Presidential candidate. Do you think that would be acceptable?
Apart from a single press conference, what has Obama done to endorse remaining in the EU?
As far as I can tell he took questions on US politics and went to the theatre on Shakey's birthday.
This. People are throwing a hissy-fit because the President of the most powerful country on the planet made clear his country's interests. He's not in the UK to fight Brexit, and even if he were attacking him for doing it, as opposed to his arguments, is an ad hominem. Project Fear indeed...
This. People are throwing a hissy-fit because the President of the most powerful country on the planet made clear his country's interests. He's not in the UK to fight Brexit, and even if he were attacking him for doing it, as opposed to his arguments, is an ad hominem. Project Fear indeed...
This isn't a temper tantrum as you seem to think it is. Having Obama saying that a US-UK trade deal post-Brexit “won’t happen any time soon” and claiming Britain “will be at the back of the queue” is fething arrogant, rank stupidity and the height of meddling. The US is the biggest investor in the UK and I'd imagine that US investment is similarly as large (we're the second largest foreign investor in the US after Canada). Over a million Americans work for British companies and over a million Britons are employed by American companies. That's quite a lot. I can't see any sane businessman or politician, stateside, who'd be unwilling to hammer out some sort of deal to keep to keep that flow of money intact. The lobbiests will be busy applying pressure left and right. Besides, Obama can't make promises for whomever will replace him, so you can add a touch of dishonesty to that list.
Edit: In fact, his intervention and talk of trade deals is the very definition of Project: Fear and is a bit of red herring. The US and EU doesn't have a trade deal currently (TTIP is supposed to be it). In an amusing twist, British trade with America has grown whereas our trade with the EU has fallen without any deals in place. So this "Beware" is a classic case of FUD.
How is it arrogance to tell a country that won't cooperate that cooperation won't happen as easily? If anything, the UK expecting that leaving will lead to no negative consequences at all is naïve at best.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is it arrogance to tell a country that won't cooperate that cooperation won't happen as easily? If anything, the UK expecting that leaving will lead to no negative consequences at all is naïve at best.
Because it's a blatant lie, designed to coerce voters in another country into voting for American interests. The'negative consequences' he is outlining are a misstatement at best and obvious deception at worst. Why?
Firstly, because Obama is on the way out. The door is about to hit his arse as he steps through the doorframe from the Oval Office. By the time the referendum is held and the ramifications begin to percolate, what Obama thinks is important will become irrelevant.
Secondly, America, like all nations, operates on realpolitik, and once the decision has been made to leave, will not feel itself bound by previous comments (and will thus continue to treat us much as they ever have done, aka however best suits their interests at the time). They won't slow relations for GB because Obama said they would.
Thirdly, the concept that there's a 'queue' for American diplomacy is laughable. You guys do have more than one employee keeping the lights on I would assume. The Foreign Office can handle more than one set of negotiations at a time, y'know?
It's also wrong as it implies that we already have a trade deal - which is not the case.
So without a free trade deal we have the current amount of trade with the USA - if we leave and the USA does put us to the back of the queue (which I doubt it will) we'll still not a have free trade deal, so it'd be logical to presume that things would carry on as they are.
His implication was that if we leave the EU things would be worse for us, but that simply isn't true. And as has been said none of this would be Obamas decision anyway - it might not even be the democrats, so how can he say where we would come in the 'queue'?
And do we really believe that the USA only handles one set of negotiations at once? If so how have the managed to get the deals with Cuba that were recently announced whilst it's been hammering out the deal with the EU? Or do we believe that the USA put Cuba ahead of it's deal with the EU?
I actually don't care that he came here to say this, I just think that his opinion is worth nothing more than 'Ted - the New York based Starbucks Employee' as he'll have as much input into the negotiation as this hypothetical Ted.
For instance, everyone complaining about the visit and the various statements and any sort of interference that way. I just went 'blergh.' - After all, the House of Commons recently had a debate to ban a potential Presidential Candidate from entering the country.
On the other hand, the whole "back of the queue" thing - There's apparently only one other trade negotiation right now. - With the EU. As for, how well even that's going, seems to be up for debate.
For the record, I'm not infavour of "banning" presidential candidates (much less actual presidents). I just think it was an insulting move and poor judgement on Obama's part.
I'm hoping the current trade deal with the US will fail or be scuppered or drastically altered. (TTIP, I'm talking about). But people shouldn't see it as something imposed by Brussels - your MEPs and Cameron et al are all in favour.
We want to put a stop to crap like this we've gotta vote left.
The point ya'll are missing is that... Obama is damn hypocrite in the worst ways.
President Obama and his flunkies bitched and moaned about Benjamen Netanyahu's anti-Iran speech in front of Congress...
But, its evidently totes cool for President Obama to, ahem, encourage a rejection of a BREXIT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think its bloody insulting for any foreign figures to be jetting in and interfering in our referendum to lecture us on how we should vote, whether its the POTUS in favour of Remain or Le Own in favour of Leave.
By all means, speak your mind, but do it in your own fething country.
Its like David Cameron flying to the united states shortly before the next presidential campaign and lecturing Americans on xenophobia.
Indeed.
But, hey... keep in mind that the likes of Obama and Clinton are "to the left of the political spectrum" with respect to centralize government control.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is it arrogance to tell a country that won't cooperate that cooperation won't happen as easily? If anything, the UK expecting that leaving will lead to no negative consequences at all is naïve at best.
Because it's a blatant lie, designed to coerce voters in another country into voting for American interests. The'negative consequences' he is outlining are a misstatement at best and obvious deception at worst. Why?
I really don't understand it either... it's like he's trying to rebuild his image abroad, or something. Or, that he lacks the understanding of the UK-to-EU dynamics.
I sure as feth don't understand...
Firstly, because Obama is on the way out. The door is about to hit his arse as he steps through the doorframe from the Oval Office. By the time the referendum is held and the ramifications begin to percolate, what Obama thinks is important will become irrelevant.
Yup. Can't wait.
Secondly, America, like all nations, operates on realpolitik, and once the decision has been made to leave, will not feel itself bound by previous comments (and will thus continue to treat us much as they ever have done, aka however best suits their interests at the time). They won't slow relations for GB because Obama said they would.
Absolutely correct. I can't foresee anything negative, relationshipnal-wise, between the UK and the US.
Thirdly, the concept that there's a 'queue' for American diplomacy is laughable. You guys do have more than one employee keeping the lights on I would assume. The Foreign Office can handle more than one set of negotiations at a time, y'know?
Wait a minute... WAIT A MINUTE! I thought all Brits know how to 'queue'???
Seriously though, yes it's laughable and what Obama implied was appalling.
It's basically fifty shades of Conservative over here.
Translation: The British definition of Left Wing is so Left Wing that we regard Communists as moderate Leftists.
Agreed, in Britain Corbyn is basically a nazi.......
You're probably being sarcastic there, and yet that statement is inadvertently not far from the truth. Their full name was the National Socialists after all...
It's basically fifty shades of Conservative over here.
Translation: The British definition of Left Wing is so Left Wing that we regard Communists as moderate Leftists.
Agreed, in Britain Corbyn is basically a nazi.......
You're probably being sarcastic there, and yet that statement is inadvertently not far from the truth. Their full name was the National Socialists after all...
Sure. If we ignore all their actual actions whilst in power and base it entirely off their name, the Nazis could be regarded as being left-wing
Though actually their full name was Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party, or NSDAP.
It's basically fifty shades of Conservative over here.
Translation: The British definition of Left Wing is so Left Wing that we regard Communists as moderate Leftists.
Agreed, in Britain Corbyn is basically a nazi.......
You're probably being sarcastic there, and yet that statement is inadvertently not far from the truth. Their full name was the National Socialists after all...
I was being a little bit sarcastic.
Then again, the Nazis were so right wing they occasionally came up on the left hand side after going the long way around the political spectrum.
I don't particularly like Corbyn..... But he isn't that bad.
Then again, I voted Tory twice...... I feel so dirty.....
Corbyn is so hopelessly out of his depth, it's embarrassing. All he's done is greenlight a bunch of Entryists and any remotely leftwing loony with an axe to grind to re-join and make trouble.
As for voting tory, I feel a little guilty too. Not because I voted for them, but because I was expecting a typical tory approach to government - lower taxes, reduction in the state and a healthy dose of EU-skepticism. So far, Osbornes outspent McBroon massively increasing our debt, moved money about whilst failing to reduce the state and then there's the whole referendum debacle...
zedmeister wrote: So far, Osbornes outspent McBroon massively increasing our debt, moved money about whilst failing to reduce the state and then there's the whole referendum debacle...
Osborne stopped working on the agenda of the Great British public the minute the Lib Dems left Government and no-one was around to monitor his control of the purse strings. All of his spending decisions these days are influenced by a) what's good for the Conservative party (giving tax breaks to the old and well off because they vote the most, and corporate donors for obvious reasons), and b) what's good for Osborne (going back to PFI and various other financial deceptions to try and make himself look good before he jumps into the ring as Cameron's successor). What's good for Britain comes a distant c).
He clearly hoped that our economy would pick up enough by now that he wouldn't have to squeeze the middle and lower classes too much, but now that hope is shot, he's more or less shrugged and got on with doing just that. The only other alternatives would mess with priorities a) and b), and he can't have that.
Finally getting around to reading the Five President's Report, and I can't get over the fact that they seriously refer to the union as 'EMU', leading to rather hilarious statements such as "a deep and genuine EMU". It sounds like a line from a dating site for birds.
Avatar 720 wrote: Finally getting around to reading the Five President's Report, and I can't get over the fact that they seriously refer to the union as 'EMU', leading to rather hilarious statements such as "a deep and genuine EMU". It sounds like a line from a dating site for birds.
I don't particularly like Corbyn..... But he isn't that bad.
Then again, I voted Tory twice...... I feel so dirty.....
Corbyn is so hopelessly out of his depth, it's embarrassing. All he's done is greenlight a bunch of Entryists and any remotely leftwing loony with an axe to grind to re-join and make trouble.
As for voting tory, I feel a little guilty too. Not because I voted for them, but because I was expecting a typical tory approach to government - lower taxes, reduction in the state and a healthy dose of EU-skepticism. So far, Osbornes outspent McBroon massively increasing our debt, moved money about whilst failing to reduce the state and then there's the whole referendum debacle...
And people wonder why I vote SNP! Who can blame me for wanting out of the UK.
zedmeister wrote: So far, Osbornes outspent McBroon massively increasing our debt, moved money about whilst failing to reduce the state and then there's the whole referendum debacle...
Osborne stopped working on the agenda of the Great British public the minute the Lib Dems left Government and no-one was around to monitor his control of the purse strings. All of his spending decisions these days are influenced by a) what's good for the Conservative party (giving tax breaks to the old and well off because they vote the most, and corporate donors for obvious reasons), and b) what's good for Osborne (going back to PFI and various other financial deceptions to try and make himself look good before he jumps into the ring as Cameron's successor). What's good for Britain comes a distant c).
He clearly hoped that our economy would pick up enough by now that he wouldn't have to squeeze the middle and lower classes too much, but now that hope is shot, he's more or less shrugged and got on with doing just that. The only other alternatives would mess with priorities a) and b), and he can't have that.
I believe that the next Tory leader will be a Euro-Sceptic. The division in the Tory party over this EU referendum will take years to heal. Osborne has no chance of becoming the next Conservative leader.
Muttermutter people who voted for the tories should certainly feel bad given their terrible governance, but it's not like Labour was looking particularly credible either muttermutter.
Da Boss wrote: Muttermutter people who voted for the tories should certainly feel bad given their terrible governance, but it's not like Labour was looking particularly credible either muttermutter.
I'm not particularly impressed with Cam & co, but I still remain convinced Millibean would have been just as bad, and Broon an utter disaster.
I just wish we could go back to another lib dem/tory coalition, I think it was the most functional government we've had in twenty years. Unofrtunately, I don't see it happening.
The point ya'll are missing is that... Obama is damn hypocrite in the worst ways.
President Obama and his flunkies bitched and moaned about Benjamen Netanyahu's anti-Iran speech in front of Congress...
But, its evidently totes cool for President Obama to, ahem, encourage a rejection of a BREXIT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I think its bloody insulting for any foreign figures to be jetting in and interfering in our referendum to lecture us on how we should vote, whether its the POTUS in favour of Remain or Le Own in favour of Leave.
By all means, speak your mind, but do it in your own fething country.
Its like David Cameron flying to the united states shortly before the next presidential campaign and lecturing Americans on xenophobia.
Indeed.
But, hey... keep in mind that the likes of Obama and Clinton are "to the left of the political spectrum" with respect to centralize government control.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is it arrogance to tell a country that won't cooperate that cooperation won't happen as easily? If anything, the UK expecting that leaving will lead to no negative consequences at all is naïve at best.
Because it's a blatant lie, designed to coerce voters in another country into voting for American interests. The'negative consequences' he is outlining are a misstatement at best and obvious deception at worst. Why?
I really don't understand it either... it's like he's trying to rebuild his image abroad, or something. Or, that he lacks the understanding of the UK-to-EU dynamics.
I sure as feth don't understand...
Firstly, because Obama is on the way out. The door is about to hit his arse as he steps through the doorframe from the Oval Office. By the time the referendum is held and the ramifications begin to percolate, what Obama thinks is important will become irrelevant.
Yup. Can't wait.
Secondly, America, like all nations, operates on realpolitik, and once the decision has been made to leave, will not feel itself bound by previous comments (and will thus continue to treat us much as they ever have done, aka however best suits their interests at the time). They won't slow relations for GB because Obama said they would.
Absolutely correct. I can't foresee anything negative, relationshipnal-wise, between the UK and the US.
Thirdly, the concept that there's a 'queue' for American diplomacy is laughable. You guys do have more than one employee keeping the lights on I would assume. The Foreign Office can handle more than one set of negotiations at a time, y'know?
Wait a minute... WAIT A MINUTE! I thought all Brits know how to 'queue'???
Seriously though, yes it's laughable and what Obama implied was appalling.
It's basically fifty shades of Conservative over here.
O.o
...I
wut... um...
huh?
Interesting links. Thanks.
I'll be honest with you - I had high hopes for Obama 8 years ago when he took office. I really thought he'd shake things up a bit for the better. Guess I fell for the hype. Like I said, Clinton in bed with corporate interests is no surprise, but I thought Obama would understand what it's like for the little guy facing the system.
Now, I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I think there's a serious attempt by governments and corporate interests to force their agenda on the rest of all and then call it progress.
The USA and the EU are in talks over TTIP. The USA is also in talks over the trans-pacific partnership agreement with many Asian countries.
Is it such a leap of the imagination to see the EU, the USA, and the Asian partnership combine into one gigantic free trade zone?
Absolutely not!
And who benefiets from that? Certainly not ordinary people like us!
That is my great fear for the future. That's one of the reasons I want out of the EU.
Da Boss wrote: I wish you guys would stay IN the EU and lead the charge against TTIP. But your government is as bad as ours, in that regard. So frustrating!
The worse thing is you can't even rely on the opposition to oppose TTIP.
Corbyn has spent a lifetime attacking the EEC and the EU, but now he's fighting to stay in the EU! WTF?
Da Boss wrote: I wish you guys would stay IN the EU and lead the charge against TTIP. But your government is as bad as ours, in that regard. So frustrating!
What charge? There are precious few mainstream parties opposing it so far as I know. Certainly in the UK, all the major parties support it.
Corbyn has come out against it, actually. But I agree, he should be making stronger statements against it!
There are parties in Europe who are against it - Die Linke and the Greens are against it and have made strong statements against it.
The more "mainstream" labour parties across europe have been bought though.
The main groundswell of opposition is from citizens, disrupting meetings (often with hilarious songs) and engaging in protests and lobbying. Germany actually has some of the highest levels of dissent about it.
We're voting on our membership of the EU not NATO. And we've had near-war in Ukraine and the EU response amounted to hand-wringing and some economic sanctions. This is just more over the top desperation from Cameron, will he say anything to frighten people into voting in (and saving his own neck because a vote out will likely finish him).
I think the current state and future goals of the EU makes war more likely actually. EU bureaucrats are engaging in empire building, and trying to expand the EU eastwards (i.e. Ukraine) which encroaches on the traditional Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Rightly or wrongly, the Kremlin views that as a threat to Russian National Security. They do love their buffer states.
NATO is or was enough to keep Russia in check. But Russia fears a unified European superpower.
It's because the polls, averaged across the common ones are showing the vote split 50/50. Remains are getting ever more desperate and resorting to ever more ridiculous hyperbole.
Project fear has morphed into project ridiculous. I laughed when I saw the wwIII story.
If it's true, and I have no reason to doubt it, the Conservative split over the EU is getting wider by the minute. The gloves are off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
zedmeister wrote: It's because the polls, averaged across the common ones are showing the vote split 50/50. Remains are getting ever more desperate and resorting to ever more ridiculous hyperbole.
Project fear has morphed into project ridiculous. I laughed when I saw the wwIII story.
I'm still laughing!
In all honesty, I wish I could vote tomorrow and put an end to this poor excuse for democratic debate from both sides. A plague on both their houses!
OMG war......with Europe. That's always been a big fear for the British.
Tell me it isn't so Dave, oh you've convinced me.
[Sarcasm mode OFF]
Seriously. This whole campaign is proof (if it were needed) that politicians and papers really do think we are as daft as they would like.
The more I read about the EU issue more annoying it gets. The suprising thing is the PM has handled this so poorly, so amateurishly. I think he's nailed his flag to the wrong mast and will go down with the ship.
Cameron is like a bad second hand car salesman trying to convince you that a Reliant Robin can do 0-60 in five seconds. Why on earth did he for one second expect anyone in the country to be swayed by the idea that leaving the eu could lead to war in Europe.
What an utter berk.
The leave campaign aren't much better to be fair, some of their own claims have been laughable, and they've been just as misleading as remain.
To me this whole campaign just highlights the lack of respect (mainly right wing) politicians have for the plebs. Both sides clearly think we are all idiots who can be swayed by their garbage.
I would remind you that it is the mostly "Right" lead leave campaign that is prioritising British democracy. The Left (and unions?) have for some reason fallen meekly into line with the PM on this issue.
Highlighting the Conservatives on both sides only shows up Labour/Liberals for lack of any leadership or personality and indeed general interest in the thoughts of the common Britton.
notprop wrote: I would remind you that it is the mostly "Right" lead leave campaign that is prioritising British democracy. The Left (and unions?) have for some reason fallen meekly into line with the PM on this issue.
Highlighting the Conservatives on both sides only shows up Labour/Liberals for lack of any leadership or personality and indeed general interest in the thoughts of the common Britton.
Those on the leave side seem to be the lunatic fringe. Nigel Farrage, Boris Johnstone and George Galloway....what a team. Then you have Gove and Grayling sniping from the sidelines. And let's not forget they now have the support of Donald Trump too
Yes, plenty on the left have come out in support of Europe, most notably the unions. Could it be that they see the eu as a integral part of keeping their members (The common Britton) jobs secure, as well as protecting workers rights? They've hardly fallen meekly in line. They've chosen the side of the argument that they feel is best for their intrests.
Of course Boris has chosen the side that best serves his intrests too....its just those intrests seem to be furthering his own political goals rather than what's best for the country.
notprop wrote: So self interest for Unions good, for Boris bad.
gotcha.
Essentially yes. Self interest in the unions case is in order to protect millions of jobs and the basic rights of workers. Self intrest in Boris Johnstones case is getting his mug on the telly and trying to become prime minister. The guy is only out for number 1.
I'd be very interested to see what percentage are undecided, as it's a very important factor. When it comes to the brass tacks, many undecided often stick with the safe bet. It's difficult to argue that a leap into the unknown is a safe bet.
Christ, Cameron is embarassing himself. It hacks me off I'm being left on the same political line as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. It's no wonder the media is able to paint 'Leave' as a bunch of cranks when the most public representatives are just that!
Meanwhile, a bunch of retired American civil servants and military people apparently say that we should stay as part of the EU for general unspecified security reasons. I'm not going to lie, I read that and just think to myself, 'What on earth does it have to do with them, and why should I care what they think?' It's bit like if the ex-Burmese Junta wanted to make their opinion known, or the current military staff of Chile. I accept everyone has an opinion, but it really is of absolutely no relevance to me, nor does it have any bearing on my decision.
Keep an eye out for more than the usual amount of shifty chicanery and subterfuge from the Gov over the coming days. The number of EU nationals given NI numbers stats are out soon and they're expected to be somewhat higher than the government's official figures on EU immigration.
Keep an eye out for more than the usual amount of shifty chicanery and subterfuge from the Gov over the coming days. The number of EU nationals given NI numbers stats are out soon and they're expected to be somewhat higher than the government's official figures on EU immigration.
I will keep an eye open for that.
Got my EU referendum leaflet through the door today. It had been delayed in Scotland because of the Scottish Parliament election.
My verdict?
What a load of Cameron propaganda!
Even if I was minded to vote remain, some of the 'facts' in the leaflet are the opposite.
Keep an eye out for more than the usual amount of shifty chicanery and subterfuge from the Gov over the coming days. The number of EU nationals given NI numbers stats are out soon and they're expected to be somewhat higher than the government's official figures on EU immigration.
I will keep an eye open for that.
Got my EU referendum leaflet through the door today. It had been delayed in Scotland because of the Scottish Parliament election.
My verdict?
What a load of Cameron propaganda!
Even if I was minded to vote remain, some of the 'facts' in the leaflet are the opposite.
I feel sorry for the trees that died for this.
Yeah I got mine too, as well as a load of leaflets from the leave campaign. Both were full of nonsense and half truths.
For once it would be great if the politicians gave us some facts to make our decisions with, especially for something so important as this. But they are all still playing their petty little one upmanship games.
Ha! I'm not too bothered if ye leave lads. It will be very interesting, at least! Agreed on the crappyness of all the politicians in the debate bar my boyfriend Corbyn.
The government produced leaflet should have been produced by an independent body. Instead it's just pro-EU propaganda that they had the cheek to say was 'informing' the public and telling us what the government's position is. It's not the government's position, the government is divided over the issue, it's Cameron's position and we're all aware of which side he is on. The dodge used to spend millions of public money to produce this on top on the allocated amounts that both campaigns are supposed to abide by was disgusting.
Cameron will now say or do anything now to prevent out votes. Prepare for weeks of dirty tricks and outright propaganda from both sides as they try to outdo each other.
I think Cameron's approach is becoming counterproductive, as people are becoming fed up of Cameron's attempts to scare and browbeat the public into voting his way. Whether this number of pissed off people is more or less than those the scare campaign works on is yet to be seen.
Da Boss wrote: Ha! I'm not too bothered if ye leave lads. It will be very interesting, at least! Agreed on the crappyness of all the politicians in the debate bar my boyfriend Corbyn.
Corbyn? He's been bad-mouthing the European project for years, then U-turns on a scale that would shame Nick Clegg, and you're praising Corbyn!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: The government produced leaflet should have been produced by an independent body. Instead it's just pro-EU propaganda that they had the cheek to say was 'informing' the public and telling us what the government's position is. It's not the government's position, the government is divided over the issue, it's Cameron's position and we're all aware of which side he is on. The dodge used to spend millions of public money to produce this on top on the allocated amounts that both campaigns are supposed to abide by was disgusting.
Cameron will now say or do anything now to prevent out votes. Prepare for weeks of dirty tricks and outright propaganda from both sides as they try to outdo each other.
I think Cameron's approach is becoming counterproductive, as people are becoming fed up of Cameron's attempts to scare and browbeat the public into voting his way. Whether this number of pissed off people is more or less than those the scare campaign works on is yet to be seen.
Whatever way the vote goes - Cameron's days are numbered. The Tory grassroots are sharpening their knives.
Keep an eye out for more than the usual amount of shifty chicanery and subterfuge from the Gov over the coming days. The number of EU nationals given NI numbers stats are out soon and they're expected to be somewhat higher than the government's official figures on EU immigration.
I will keep an eye open for that.
Got my EU referendum leaflet through the door today. It had been delayed in Scotland because of the Scottish Parliament election.
My verdict?
What a load of Cameron propaganda!
Even if I was minded to vote remain, some of the 'facts' in the leaflet are the opposite.
I feel sorry for the trees that died for this.
Yeah I got mine too, as well as a load of leaflets from the leave campaign. Both were full of nonsense and half truths.
For once it would be great if the politicians gave us some facts to make our decisions with, especially for something so important as this. But they are all still playing their petty little one upmanship games.
I was tempted to fire my leaflet back out the letterbox or even use it on my rear for you know what, but sharp edges and a delicate area make for a bad mix!
Ah now, it's possible to criticise without wanting to leave. I've loads of things to criticise about the EU, but I don't want to leave it or see it destroyed. Just improved!
Da Boss wrote: Ha! I'm not too bothered if ye leave lads. It will be very interesting, at least! Agreed on the crappyness of all the politicians in the debate bar my boyfriend Corbyn.
Corbyn? He's been bad-mouthing the European project for years, then U-turns on a scale that would shame Nick Clegg, and you're praising Corbyn!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: The government produced leaflet should have been produced by an independent body. Instead it's just pro-EU propaganda that they had the cheek to say was 'informing' the public and telling us what the government's position is. It's not the government's position, the government is divided over the issue, it's Cameron's position and we're all aware of which side he is on. The dodge used to spend millions of public money to produce this on top on the allocated amounts that both campaigns are supposed to abide by was disgusting.
Cameron will now say or do anything now to prevent out votes. Prepare for weeks of dirty tricks and outright propaganda from both sides as they try to outdo each other.
I think Cameron's approach is becoming counterproductive, as people are becoming fed up of Cameron's attempts to scare and browbeat the public into voting his way. Whether this number of pissed off people is more or less than those the scare campaign works on is yet to be seen.
Whatever way the vote goes - Cameron's days are numbered. The Tory grassroots are sharpening their knives.
Keep an eye out for more than the usual amount of shifty chicanery and subterfuge from the Gov over the coming days. The number of EU nationals given NI numbers stats are out soon and they're expected to be somewhat higher than the government's official figures on EU immigration.
I will keep an eye open for that.
Got my EU referendum leaflet through the door today. It had been delayed in Scotland because of the Scottish Parliament election.
My verdict?
What a load of Cameron propaganda!
Even if I was minded to vote remain, some of the 'facts' in the leaflet are the opposite.
I feel sorry for the trees that died for this.
Yeah I got mine too, as well as a load of leaflets from the leave campaign. Both were full of nonsense and half truths.
For once it would be great if the politicians gave us some facts to make our decisions with, especially for something so important as this. But they are all still playing their petty little one upmanship games.
I was tempted to fire my leaflet back out the letterbox or even use it on my rear for you know what, but sharp edges and a delicate area make for a bad mix!
Pro-Brexit Group Grassroots Out Has Sacked A Dozen Staff Ahead Of Referendum
The Nigel Farage-backed campaign has sacked its regional coordinators with just six weeks to go until the EU referendum, BuzzFeed News has learned, leaving what one former agent described as a “zombie campaign”.
..............
Around a dozen full-time agents were made redundant last month, despite helping to found local anti-EU campaigns and coordinate volunteers in the run-up to the vote on 23 June.
One former Grassroots Out agent claimed staff had originally been promised a job until after the EU referendum and suggested the organisation, founded by Tory MPs Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove, now resembled a “zombie campaign”.
The decision to sack the professional staff before the vote shows the problems caused by rival factions within the anti-EU movement building their own organisations and competing for the support of the same activists.
The ex-agent suggested the decision to sack staff meant the campaign now had a network of anti-EU volunteers across the country who would no longer be coordinated, potentially damaging the pro-Brexit campaign. They also claimed individuals at the top of the GO organisation had blocked efforts to work with the official anti-EU campaign, Vote Leave, due to personal enmities.
“A lot of people in Grassroots Out wanted to work with Vote Leave after they got designation, but people at the top of Grassroots Out didn’t want to work with Vote Leave,” said the former agent. “If you’re going to support a football team you’re not going to support a football team that’s gone into an unofficial league. It makes sense to work with Vote Leave.”
That's a Vote Leave spokesperson, complaining after ITV chose Nigel Farage -- the leader of UKIP -- to represent the Leave campaign in a TV debate.
So this means that anti-EU UKIP are at war with anti-EU Vote Leave after Vote Leave attacked ITV/Peston for being pro-EU : by putting Farage on TV.
Meanwhile Boris Johnson has pulled a pint and waved a pasty about, with regards to information about exactly what we'd if with regards to EU citizens in this country if we do choose to leave there appears to be something of a silence.
Pro-Brexit Group Grassroots Out Has Sacked A Dozen Staff Ahead Of Referendum
The Nigel Farage-backed campaign has sacked its regional coordinators with just six weeks to go until the EU referendum, BuzzFeed News has learned, leaving what one former agent described as a “zombie campaign”.
..............
Around a dozen full-time agents were made redundant last month, despite helping to found local anti-EU campaigns and coordinate volunteers in the run-up to the vote on 23 June.
One former Grassroots Out agent claimed staff had originally been promised a job until after the EU referendum and suggested the organisation, founded by Tory MPs Peter Bone and Tom Pursglove, now resembled a “zombie campaign”.
The decision to sack the professional staff before the vote shows the problems caused by rival factions within the anti-EU movement building their own organisations and competing for the support of the same activists.
The ex-agent suggested the decision to sack staff meant the campaign now had a network of anti-EU volunteers across the country who would no longer be coordinated, potentially damaging the pro-Brexit campaign. They also claimed individuals at the top of the GO organisation had blocked efforts to work with the official anti-EU campaign, Vote Leave, due to personal enmities.
“A lot of people in Grassroots Out wanted to work with Vote Leave after they got designation, but people at the top of Grassroots Out didn’t want to work with Vote Leave,” said the former agent. “If you’re going to support a football team you’re not going to support a football team that’s gone into an unofficial league. It makes sense to work with Vote Leave.”
That's a Vote Leave spokesperson, complaining after ITV chose Nigel Farage -- the leader of UKIP -- to represent the Leave campaign in a TV debate.
So this means that anti-EU UKIP are at war with anti-EU Vote Leave after Vote Leave attacked ITV/Peston for being pro-EU : by putting Farage on TV.
Meanwhile Boris Johnson has pulled a pit and waved a pasty about, with regards to information about exactly what we'd if with regards to EU citizens in this country if we do choose to leave there appears to be something of a silence.
I think leave have every right to be aggrieved at Farrage being chosen for the debate, he's not part of the official leave campaign, sure he's well known for his anti eu views, but he's essentially a civilian in all this. Of course ITV could have just chosen him on the basis that he will provide good entertainment value due to his prat levels. They could have had a range of voices, Boris, Cameron, Farrage and Alan Johnstone/Corbyn would have seemed fairer.
Next scare story out, now exit will cause recession.
Honestly Cameron must be a really bad PM, he’s put our membership of the EU in jeopardy when it’ll lead to:
World War 3,
The complete removal of our influence in the world
The complete end of all trade with the EU A recession
The end of all worker rights
Climate Change running rampant (but only within the boundaries of the UK)
Criminals and terrorists walking freely in the streets
Honestly, want kind of PM takes any action that could cause all this.....
Or perhaps they are all just scare stories and he doesn’t really believe any of that would happen.
Stranger83 wrote: Next scare story out, now exit will cause recession.
Honestly Cameron must be a really bad PM, he’s put our membership of the EU in jeopardy when it’ll lead to:
World War 3,
The complete removal of our influence in the world
The complete end of all trade with the EU A recession
The end of all worker rights
Climate Change running rampant (but only within the boundaries of the UK)
Criminals and terrorists walking freely in the streets
Honestly, want kind of PM takes any action that could cause all this.....
Or perhaps they are all just scare stories and he doesn’t really believe any of that would happen.
Cameron is an idiot, but that's by the by. He called the referendum because he wouldn't have had any hope of staying prime minister otherwise, the knives were out in the Tory party, and if he hadn't bent to the will of the euro sceptics like Gove and Grayling he would have got shanked big time.
I don't think they are all "scare stories" as you put it. The markets will not react well if we vote no, that's almost a given, any hint of instability and the stock market has a wobble. Getting out of the eu is a jump into the unknown. The markets will like that even less.
Workers right for example, would most certainly not be safe. Look at what the current government is doing to the trade unions for example. Would you REALLY trust a post Brexit Tory party to keep the liberal workers rights we have now?
I don't think anyone has said trade with the eu will end, but it won't be anywhere near as easy as it is now, especially while we are waiting for any trade deals to be sorted out.
There have been just as many scare stories from the ones wanting us to leave the eu. Remember Farrage saying that 20 million Romanians were going to turn up when they joined the EU? Or his recent broadcast about all those Muslims in Turkey wanting to come over here and rape us all.
Then of course there's all the wild claims about "all our laws being made in Brussels" and how we don't have a say. I forget the exact percentages that were being thrown out by the anti Europe mob, but I remember them being widely debunked. That's before you get into the fact that we actually have a say, as well as a veto on major changes. And let's not forget that many of these are laws we'd have to obey anyway should we pull out and still want to trade with the EU.
The current custodians of the leave campaign may not be throwing out these wild stories at the moment, but we've been subjected to decades of anti European fear stories from the likes of Farrage, the Express and the Mail.
There's misinformation and exaggeration on both sides of the debate. Just like there are fairly sensible points to be found too.
Workers right for example, would most certainly not be safe. Look at what the current government is doing to the trade unions for example. Would you REALLY trust a post Brexit Tory party to keep the liberal workers rights we have now?
It always makes me laugh that people seem to think that the EU is some mighty protector of workers rights - because one of the worst infringements I can think of to workers rights are zero hour contracts - and these were entirely unheard of before the EU.
Workers right for example, would most certainly not be safe. Look at what the current government is doing to the trade unions for example. Would you REALLY trust a post Brexit Tory party to keep the liberal workers rights we have now?
It always makes me laugh that people seem to think that the EU is some mighty protector of workers rights - because one of the worst infringements I can think of to workers rights are zero hour contracts - and these were entirely unheard of before the EU.
Are you seriously blaming the rise of zero hour contracts on the eu?
Workers right for example, would most certainly not be safe. Look at what the current government is doing to the trade unions for example. Would you REALLY trust a post Brexit Tory party to keep the liberal workers rights we have now?
It always makes me laugh that people seem to think that the EU is some mighty protector of workers rights - because one of the worst infringements I can think of to workers rights are zero hour contracts - and these were entirely unheard of before the EU.
Are you seriously blaming the rise of zero hour contracts on the eu?
That's laughable. Truly.
But it does raise an interesting point does it not? You stated that workers rights may not be safe out of the EU. But clearly, we have had zero hours contracts. The EU is not a defender of workers rights but is working to regulate such contracts - which are used across Europe where there are different implementations.
If the EU were to determine that the UK method of implementation was correct - and legislated on that basis - what then?
Workers right for example, would most certainly not be safe. Look at what the current government is doing to the trade unions for example. Would you REALLY trust a post Brexit Tory party to keep the liberal workers rights we have now?
It always makes me laugh that people seem to think that the EU is some mighty protector of workers rights - because one of the worst infringements I can think of to workers rights are zero hour contracts - and these were entirely unheard of before the EU.
Are you seriously blaming the rise of zero hour contracts on the eu?
That's laughable. Truly.
But it does raise an interesting point does it not? You stated that workers rights may not be safe out of the EU. But clearly, we have had zero hours contracts. The EU is not a defender of workers rights but is working to regulate such contracts - which are used across Europe where there are different implementations.
If the EU were to determine that the UK method of implementation was correct - and legislated on that basis - what then?
Zero hours contracts are a relatively new phenomena at least on this scale. While deplorable, there hasn't really been much work done to combat them yet. Just because the eu hasn't cracked down on them...yet. Does not make them in any way responsible for them.
Look at all the other things the eu has done for workers rights:
Paid holidays
Maternity and paternity leave
The working time directive.
It's utter nonsense to say that simply because zero hour contracts exist, that the eu is responsible. Quite frankly, I would trust Brussels to deal with the problem far more than I would trust the current Tory government.
You say maternity and paternity leave are things that came from the EU.
Yet British Materinity and Paternity leave is much better than the European requirement. The EU only demands that you give 18 weeks Materinity leave, and it doesn't have to be paid.....
Honestly, th Government isn't about to remove all our rights because we leave the EU.
Workers right for example, would most certainly not be safe. Look at what the current government is doing to the trade unions for example. Would you REALLY trust a post Brexit Tory party to keep the liberal workers rights we have now?
It always makes me laugh that people seem to think that the EU is some mighty protector of workers rights - because one of the worst infringements I can think of to workers rights are zero hour contracts - and these were entirely unheard of before the EU.
Are you seriously blaming the rise of zero hour contracts on the eu?
That's laughable. Truly.
No, not at all - just that they are in existence and the EU does nothing about it, hence in what way do they 'protect the rights of workers'?
You made the claim that it is only because of the EU that we have any workers right, I simply pointed out that, since we have been in the EU we have implemented a law that removes ALL workers rights, so to claim that the EU in any way protects workers rights is not true.
Do I think that zero hours contracts will disappear if we vote out, No
Do I think that that zero hours contracts came about because of the EU, No
But the fact still remains that they have occurred under the EUs watch, and it hasn't lifted a finger to do anything about them - that isn't what I would call protection.
There's currently a process going on to prevent wage dumping and make sure that companies based in other EU countries can't outcompete domestic ones due to lower salaries. Pretty sure that counts as "protecting workers".
DOOM! Harriet Harman says women's rights will be affected if UK leaves EU.
DOOM! John Major Warns of BREXIT
DOOM! Governor of Bank of England warns of economy affected if BREXIT happens
I'm cowering with fear
Indeed. Then there's Lagarde's slip up that revealed that the treasury helped the IMF work out their figures:
“Let me by the same token thank all UK authorities who have been helping us in preparing the article for work in the last few weeks. There’s always been good cooperation between the Treasury, the Bank of England and any other authorities that we consult with”
DOOM! Harriet Harman says women's rights will be affected if UK leaves EU.
DOOM! John Major Warns of BREXIT
DOOM! Governor of Bank of England warns of economy affected if BREXIT happens
I'm cowering with fear
Indeed. Then there's Lagarde's slip up that revealed that the treasury helped the IMF work out their figures:
“Let me by the same token thank all UK authorities who have been helping us in preparing the article for work in the last few weeks. There’s always been good cooperation between the Treasury, the Bank of England and any other authorities that we consult with”
Indeed, the remains arguments are getting more and more deranged and hysterical. The WWIII comment was beyond parody. And it's all because, hilariously, the polls are, on average, stubbornly showing a 50/50 split. Game on!
It's pretty pathetic. This is the same media who will no doubt lament the "lack of a positive vision for Europe" or some crap while laying the doom'n'gloom on thick to try and win the politics of fear game.
So far only the Brexiters are really putting anything positive forward. I personally think they're being unrealistic, but all the same, it's a pretty sad indictment of the political mainstream.
In a way I'm glad that the UK is experiencing this, it may broaden awareness of the crappy tactics in the media. Everyone seemed hunky dory with this crap when they were doing it to Scotland.
Eighty Commonwealth community and business leaders have written an open letter to the PM lobbying for Brexit as they believe membership of the EU restricts British world trade. They claim that the EU's control of British trade policy stops the UK from negotiating its own trade deals outside the EU. (the commonwealth group also complained of the EU's discriminatory migration practices which favour EU citizens over world citizens)
Barclays Bank analysts have come to the conclusion that Brexit could make Britain a "safe haven" from a disintegrating EU, and dissuade Scotland from breaking away from the relative safety of the UK.
70% of Chief Financial Officers (CFO's) say that Brexit would NOT damage global business with the UK. CFO's are the senior managers responsible for overseeing the financial activities of entire companies.
Boeing, the worlds largest aircraft maker, has picked Britain as home for its new European headquarters regardless of Brexit. Boeing shrugged off concerns about a UK exit from the EU and selected London as the base for its entire European operation. Boeing currently employs approximately 2,000 staff and has also invested £1.8billion in the country.
Multibillion dollar cosmetics giant Avon is relocating its headquarters to Britain from the US after 130-years, regardless of Brexit. Avon said the move will help the company maximise direct connections to its global operations through a UK base.
Vicky Redwood, Chief UK Economist at Capital Economics, has said that Brexit will not stop the City from prospering. She stated that the City could nonetheless "still prosper if the UK left the EU", noting that London's reputation as a global finance centre predates the Single Market.
The CBI has conceded defeat in its economic arguments to remain in the EU, following the publication of a study it commissioned from PwC, which revealed that economic growth will be higher in the long-term if we leave the EU. It's an admission that higher costs through taxes and regulatory compliance makes us less competitive than we should be.
HSBC and Toyota have declared they are staying in the UK in the event of Brexit.
Lord Blackwell, chairman of Lloyds Banking Group and former advisor to two Prime Ministers, has said that the UK-EU relationship is increasingly unsustainable. He adds that Brexit will NOT hurt the UK economy.
Norway's $830billion wealth fund, the worlds largest, has stated that Brexit is NOT a significant risk. Yngve Slyngstad, CEO of Norges Bank Investment Management, has said "we will continue to be a significant investor in the UK at about the same level as we are today and probably even increasing our investments there going forward no matter what happens."
Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of International Airlines Group, which includes BA, has dismissed the 'remain' campaigns scaremongering and argued that Brexit will have no economic impact.
John Longworth, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), has said Britain would be better off outside the EU. In a speech at the BCC annual conference in London, Mr. Longworth said the UK could create a "brighter economic future for itself" outside the EU. He has since resigned in order to continue his support for Brexit.
One of Britains most influential fund managers, Neil Woodford (BAE Systems, GlaxoSmithKline and BT), has commissioned research from consultancy Capital Economics which shows no lasting negative impact on the UK. It even shows possible economic benefits from Brexit.
Mark Littlewood, director-general of the Institute for Economic Affairs, believes that the UK will be better off outside the EU. He explained his views in a video for the BBC's Daily Politics (10/03/16).
Sir James Dyson, inventor and vacuum cleaner tycoon, has stated he believes the UK should quit the EU.
The boss of Wetherspoons has declared that he believes the UK can thrive outside the EU.
The former HSBC chief executive Michael Geoghegan, and the founders of JML, Reebok and Phones4U all support Brexit, as does the CEO of Legal and General, the CEO of Numis Securities and the boss of Odey Asset Management.
Ruth Lea - economic advisor to the Arbuthnot Banking Group - says the UK should leave "an increasingly dysfunctional EU", and that Britain can thrive post-Brexit.
Jim Mellon - entrepreneur, investor and chairman of Burnbrae Group - supports Brexit, saying the UK should leave Europe before the "inevitable eurozone meltdown".
Frances Dickens - entrepreneur, co-founder and Chief Executive of Astus Group - supports Brexit, saying that Brexit could offer school-leavers a rare opportunity for better jobs, better wages and better chances to set up their own businesses.
Peter Hargreaves, co-founder of FTSE 100 stockbroker Hargreaves Lansdown, has said he supports Brexit. He has said that a British exit from the EU could help stimulate Britain, with a fresh start helping the nation to innovate. He said concerns about leaving the EU were overblown. He has sent a letter to two in three UK households, urging them to back Brexit. In the letter, Mr. Hargreaves urges voters to ignore "heads of big institutions whose cushy lives will be disrupted by change" and listen to entrepreneurs who back Brexit.
The RMT Union will campaign for Brexit from a "pro-austerity, anti-worker" European Union. In a statement, RMT's general secretary Mike Cash said: "EU policies are at odds with the aspirations of this union as the various treaties and directives are demanding the privatisation of our rail and ferry industries". He added that the EU was negotiating secret trade deals "which will decimate our health and education sectors, and hand huge powers to transnational corporations over nation states and their governments".
ASLEF, the train drivers union, is campaigning for Brexit. It says that workers rights offered by Brussels are "far outweighed and undermined by the benefits given to big business and banking".
The 20,000 strong Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU) also supports Brexit.
Winterflood Securities founder, Brian Winterflood, is backing Brexit. His son, Guy Winterflood, is a serial tech-entrepreneur currently running data firm Letyano, and he also backs Brexit. Other son, Mark Winterflood, is a private banker at HSBC and also supports Brexit.
Not that you will hear it as head line news though. Independant imf with help from treasury and Bank of england ha ha ha totally independant not.
Da Boss wrote: It's pretty pathetic. This is the same media who will no doubt lament the "lack of a positive vision for Europe" or some crap while laying the doom'n'gloom on thick to try and win the politics of fear game.
So far only the Brexiters are really putting anything positive forward. I personally think they're being unrealistic, but all the same, it's a pretty sad indictment of the political mainstream.
In a way I'm glad that the UK is experiencing this, it may broaden awareness of the crappy tactics in the media. Everyone seemed hunky dory with this crap when they were doing it to Scotland.
The irony is, the same people complaining about IN's scare stories are the same people who said that Scotland going independent would start world war 3.
I'll mention no names. Cough...Gove...cough Bojo...
On a more serious note, I've been doing some reading on what would happen to Scotland after June 23rd.
BREXIT would lead to two scenarios:
1) Support for independence increases, with a possible new referendum, 2) or Scotland gets more powers, such as fishing and agriculture, as the UK government would now be able to devolve them, which only makes the transition to independence more likely. The New Zealand effect.
Britain votes to stay in the EU: only delays Scottish independence for a few years. Last poll was 52/48 in favour of stay.
Scotland is split down the middle, but seeing as the EU vote polls are evenly split, if OUT doesn't win big, then the UK will be split on this issue for years. I cite the aftermath of September 18th 2014 as proof of this.
Conclusion: UK politics is going to be very interesting after June 23rd, regardless of result.
welshhoppo wrote: Honestly, th Government isn't about to remove all our rights because we leave the EU.
Have you seen the state of the current Tory government, or indeed the monsters they have waiting in the wings to take over once Cameron inevitably gets pushed out of his little pig pen?
It's utter nonsense to say that simply because zero hour contracts exist, that the eu is responsible. Quite frankly, I would trust Brussels to deal with the problem far more than I would trust the current Tory government.
Fair enough. But that's exceedingly shortsighted of you. The real question is, do you trust the much more unaccountable EU bureaucracy machine more than you do any future British Government?
Da Boss wrote: It's pretty pathetic. This is the same media who will no doubt lament the "lack of a positive vision for Europe" or some crap while laying the doom'n'gloom on thick to try and win the politics of fear game.
So far only the Brexiters are really putting anything positive forward. I personally think they're being unrealistic, but all the same, it's a pretty sad indictment of the political mainstream.
In a way I'm glad that the UK is experiencing this, it may broaden awareness of the crappy tactics in the media. Everyone seemed hunky dory with this crap when they were doing it to Scotland.
The irony is, the same people complaining about IN's scare stories are the same people who said that Scotland going independent would start world war 3.
I'll mention no names. Cough...Gove...cough Bojo...
On a more serious note, I've been doing some reading on what would happen to Scotland after June 23rd.
BREXIT would lead to two scenarios:
1) Support for independence increases, with a possible new referendum, 2) or Scotland gets more powers, such as fishing and agriculture, as the UK government would now be able to devolve them, which only makes the transition to independence more likely. The New Zealand effect.
Britain votes to stay in the EU: only delays Scottish independence for a few years. Last poll was 52/48 in favour of stay.
Scotland is split down the middle, but seeing as the EU vote polls are evenly split, if OUT doesn't win big, then the UK will be split on this issue for years. I cite the aftermath of September 18th 2014 as proof of this.
Conclusion: UK politics is going to be very interesting after June 23rd, regardless of result.
Someone asked a good question about Scotland on question time last night. One of the major points of the independence campaign was that Scotland would join the European Union and benefit massively from being a smaller country within it (or something like that) if Britain leaving the EU contributes to the eus downfall, as some are suggesting it might, what would happen to Scotland if they were part of it?
I don't mean to jump to conclusions but you seem pro Indy and pro Brexit, so I'm guessing you'd think it'd all be fine, the fella on QT wasn't so sure. He thought a failing eu might harm the Indy campaign and bring Scotland closer to the UK.
As someone who was fairly on the fence about the whole Indy thing, it seemed like an interesting quandary.
I wouldn't be so certain of Scotland getting that much more power as a result of Brexit though, I can imagine the government of the day would be just as slow as this one in passing new powers to Scotland. Have they even implemented half the stuff they promised during the Indy campaign yet?
welshhoppo wrote: Honestly, th Government isn't about to remove all our rights because we leave the EU.
Have you seen the state of the current Tory government, or indeed the monsters they have waiting in the wings to take over once Cameron inevitably gets pushed out of his little pig pen?
Anything our current (or future) governments do can be unpicked easily enough by a subsequent set of Ministers with a fresh majority. If a Government does something unpopular enough, it gets booted out at the next election, and the party saying that they'll reverse/change course gets power. It's something of a self-fixing issue, you might have to live with something for a period of time, but usually the right thing will out. It's how we've gone from press-ganging members of the Royal Navy and forcing the poor to break rocks for loaves of bread to where we are now.
I know it often seems like our country is broken beyond belief to the people who live here, but having lived under a dictatorship, I know just how damn good we have it over here. Historically, this country has always been riding the front of the wave when it comes to inclusiveness, innovation, and philanthropy, and I don't see that suddenly stopping because *cue panto hiss from left wing* Conservatives got a majority, and pass a few minor unpopular legislative policies.
If we end up nothing more than a cog in the EU machine though, we're no longer in charge of our own direction. We're suddenly more and more accountable to countries in Europe like Poland, which are far more extreme in certain regards. I mean, christ, they're pushing Turkey in at the moment. No thanks. I'll stick with the historically tried and tested for now. I like being part of a European Trade Zone. Not the United States of Europe.
The RMT Union will campaign for Brexit from a "pro-austerity, anti-worker" European Union. In a statement, RMT's general secretary Mike Cash said: "EU policies are at odds with the aspirations of this union as the various treaties and directives are demanding the privatisation of our rail and ferry industries". He added that the EU was negotiating secret trade deals "which will decimate our health and education sectors, and hand huge powers to transnational corporations over nation states and their governments".
ASLEF, the train drivers union, is campaigning for Brexit. It says that workers rights offered by Brussels are "far outweighed and undermined by the benefits given to big business and banking".
The 20,000 strong Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU) also supports Brexit.
I was wracking my brains trying to remember if ASLEF were in the Brexit camp, so thanks for reminding me
It's rather telling that some major unions are looking at Brexit as an option.
welshhoppo wrote: Honestly, th Government isn't about to remove all our rights because we leave the EU.
Have you seen the state of the current Tory government, or indeed the monsters they have waiting in the wings to take over once Cameron inevitably gets pushed out of his little pig pen?
Anything our current (or future) governments do can be unpicked easily enough by a subsequent set of Ministers with a fresh majority. If a Government does something unpopular enough, it gets booted out at the next election, and the party saying that they'll reverse/change course gets power. It's something of a self-fixing issue, you might have to live with something for a period of time, but usually the right thing will out. It's how we've gone from press-ganging members of the Royal Navy and forcing the poor to break rocks for loaves of bread to where we are now.
I know it often seems like our country is broken beyond belief to the people who live here, but having lived under a dictatorship, I know just how damn good we have it over here. Historically, this country has always been riding the front of the wave when it comes to inclusiveness, innovation, and philanthropy, and I don't see that suddenly stopping because *cue panto hiss from left wing* Conservatives got a majority, and pass a few minor unpopular legislative policies.
If we end up nothing more than a cog in the EU machine though, we're no longer in charge of our own direction. We're suddenly more and more accountable to countries in Europe like Poland, which are far more extreme in certain regards. I mean, christ, they're pushing Turkey in at the moment. No thanks. I'll stick with the historically tried and tested for now. I like being part of a European Trade Zone. Not the United States of Europe.
^ My point exactly. If a government brings in X, and X is really really bad then all Y has to do is announce to repeal X and Y will win the next election by a landslide. Our government cannot bind itself in contract.
As opposed to the EU, which can and does bind all the countries that make it up in contract.
Indeed, which is why I despair when people say things along the lines of:
"Why would I vote the way Boris/Cameron are?"
"Ugh, not voting on the same side as Farage"
or even the old favourite:
"I don't trust our current government, so I daren't vote to leave the EU"
Etc etc. Turning this into a party political bunfight is the worst thing to do. Boris, Gove, Corbyn, Cameron, Farage, Osbourne, they'll all be gone in a few years give or take. Voted out, sacked or knifed by their own party - pick one.
However, this is beyond party politics and ideology in some respects. Whatever choice we make, we will have to live with those consequences long after the personalities who campaigned at the time have long faded from memory.
Dont thank me mr burning i found that list on a face book post from sky in the comments section, but thought it might intrest some people on here as i didnt know half of whats there, after checking its seems ligit though.
I've been searching for a link or source to this story, but a reliable commentator from twitter has been saying that there will be no exit poll for the EU referendum! WTF!
Now, this happened during the Scottish referendum, and it puzzled me then as well. You would think a vote of this magnitude would have an exit poll.
I would suppose, maybe, a referendum only has 2 results really (yes/no). Whereas, hypothetically (albeit not often in reality), there can be a large spread of results, many of which are only relevant to that individual area, rather than the fate of a nation. - EG, some people vote for "Alice," "Jim" or "Bob" as opposed to "Tory," "Labour" or "Lib Dems." (Or any of the other local parties running)
I'm sure google will have a better answer than my random guesses.
Got the government leaflet through and it seemed as clear as mud. Alas the Brexit camp dont really appear to make any sense or factul claims either.
Think at this rate I'm going to possibly sit this vote out. Which is sad as I did it for the Scottish elections as well, however I don't feel well informed enough to make a reasonable decision, I only have a gut feeling.
Zond wrote: Got the government leaflet through and it seemed as clear as mud. Alas the Brexit camp dont really appear to make any sense or factul claims either.
Think at this rate I'm going to possibly sit this vote out. Which is sad as I did it for the Scottish elections as well, however I don't feel well informed enough to make a reasonable decision, I only have a gut feeling.
Do we want to be part of a Europe where centralized control is taken of our ecomomic, defence, diplomatic and domestic policies? Full federalisation is the aim of the EU and its leaders.
Do you want an independent UK effectively.
Everything else is really just mud slinging and smears at this point.
Zond wrote: Got the government leaflet through and it seemed as clear as mud. Alas the Brexit camp dont really appear to make any sense or factul claims either.
Think at this rate I'm going to possibly sit this vote out. Which is sad as I did it for the Scottish elections as well, however I don't feel well informed enough to make a reasonable decision, I only have a gut feeling.
Aye. The intended goal (as laid out in the presidents report of the EU) is to gradually take control of this country. I don't want it to. Everything else is so much irrelevant peanuts really.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Business leaders who are overwhelming self interested. I care more about democracy and national self determination than the profit margins of big corporations and the salaries of CEO's. They could cry me a river about their share prices, and I'll bathe in their tears.
If my country has to endure economic hardship in the short term to win back political independence and sovereignty in the long term, I can live with that.
See, this is the exact same thing that has basically turned this thread into a group of people for the Brexit chatting amongst themselves about how awful the EU is and complaining about "Project Fear" (because there's definitely been absolutely no fearmongering about the EU from the "Leave" capmaign), with maybe one or two people popping in and out occasionally as a voice of dissent.
You have two sets of almost identical opposing evidence. But you dismiss one of them out of hand as being self-interested whilst praising the other for being a feather in the cap of your argument. It makes discussing anything in this thread impossible, because any evidence provided just gets ignored for being biased, or "Project Fear", or self-interested. But the same biased evidence is fine if it agrees with you, and discussions of the number of rapes committed by migrants is fine and dandy, and Boris Johnson backing the EU to set himself up as an alternative to Cameron as PM is just sensible politics.
Cameron's got nice photos with that poster claiming the 'cost' of leaving the EU is £4300 'for every household'. Assuming this number is accurate it's a cost to the country that works out at that per household. It's not a cost for households to foot, they've phrased it to make it sound like it's coming directly out of our pockets. Another piece of disinformation to scare.
My belief is that in the long run it won't make a huge difference economically either way. There's a lot of bullshitting going on now about how awful it will be for the UK and Europe, but if the decision is made to leave then countries and companies will make it work, everyone isn't going to hurry to cut off their nose to spite their face just because they didn't like us leaving the EU. It won't be pretty or easy, but it'll work out.
This is just about independence from Europe. My main issue is that there's continual mission creep by the EU beyond helping free trade. That isn't what we signed up for and it will still advance beyond what we agree to remain in now. If we stay in, it will keep creeping along demanding more and bringing us closer together, erasing borders and merging armed forces, not what I want to see.
This is just about independence from Europe. My main issue is that there's continual mission creep by the EU beyond helping free trade. That isn't what we signed up for and it will still advance beyond what we agree to remain in now. If we stay in, it will keep creeping along demanding more and bringing us closer together, erasing borders and merging armed forces, not what I want to see.
It isnt mission creep, its the stated end goal of the Union. And it is what we signed up for. Its been the aim for decades and every leader signing treaties and documents bring us closer knows this.
It is just conveniently hidden behind talk of vetoes and rebates etc.
Do we want to be part of a Europe where centralized control is taken of our ecomomic, defence, diplomatic and domestic policies? Full federalisation is the aim of the EU and its leaders.
Do you want an independent UK effectively.
Everything else is really just mud slinging and smears at this point.
This is so hilarious - you have Farage and Johnson insulting foreigners, invoking Hitler, then they complain that people are insulting them!
The Brexit campaign isn't really about asserting independence. it's Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, and a step toward dismantling the NHS and other great institutions, as expounded by Farage and the major Brexit backer, watering down workers' and human rights, and turning us into a tax haven like Panama or the Cayman Islands, where the super-rich moor their yachts, and we clean their toilets.
Do we want to be part of a Europe where centralized control is taken of our ecomomic, defence, diplomatic and domestic policies? Full federalisation is the aim of the EU and its leaders.
Do you want an independent UK effectively.
Everything else is really just mud slinging and smears at this point.
This is so hilarious - you have Farage and Johnson insulting foreigners, invoking Hitler, then they complain that people are insulting them!
The Brexit campaign isn't really about asserting independence. it's Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, and a step toward dismantling the NHS and other great institutions, as expounded by Farage and the major Brexit backer, watering down workers' and human rights, and turning us into a tax haven like Panama or the Cayman Islands, where the super-rich moor their yachts, and we clean their toilets.
Which is what the EU wants as well is it not? (Obvs not Boris as our 'Kingminister'! though).
Do we want to be part of a Europe where centralized control is taken of our ecomomic, defence, diplomatic and domestic policies? Full federalisation is the aim of the EU and its leaders.
Do you want an independent UK effectively.
Everything else is really just mud slinging and smears at this point.
This is so hilarious - you have Farage and Johnson insulting foreigners, invoking Hitler, then they complain that people are insulting them!
The Brexit campaign isn't really about asserting independence. it's Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, and a step toward dismantling the NHS and other great institutions, as expounded by Farage and the major Brexit backer, watering down workers' and human rights, and turning us into a tax haven like Panama or the Cayman Islands, where the super-rich moor their yachts, and we clean their toilets.
The NHS is being dismantled anyway, being in or out of Europe is irrelevant.
This is so hilarious - you have Farage and Johnson insulting foreigners, invoking Hitler, then they complain that people are insulting them!
The Brexit campaign isn't really about asserting independence. it's Boris Johnson's leadership campaign, and a step toward dismantling the NHS and other great institutions, as expounded by Farage and the major Brexit backer, watering down workers' and human rights, and turning us into a tax haven like Panama or the Cayman Islands, where the super-rich moor their yachts, and we clean their toilets.
I thought this was a vote to determine whether we stay or leave the EU, not to vote in a new prime minister! As I mentioned a page or two back, don't fall for the trap of party polticising this. It's too big for that. Also, don't fall for the trap of "I can't stand this current government and only the EU can save us". The current government, whatever the ideology, will continue with its goals. Handing over more power to the EU is just moving the decisions to an office who is less accountable to us, the electorate.
It's too big and important to trivialise and focus on personalities who will be gone in 10 years, probably less.
Agreed on that. Referenda are about personal choices and beliefs. I think the media focus on all these "big beasts" and so on is pretty stupid - someone could think Boris is a total arse, and still vote Out no problem, or think Corbyn is a dangerous terrorist supporting allotment spanker and vote In without a second choice.
The divying of things up along political party lines I think is only happening because political journalists find it difficult to see the world through any other lens.
I've kinda lost track of what's been going on in this thread. But I was just wondering what our resident Briton's opinion on this documentary was. I thought it was pretty good.....
Da Boss wrote: Agreed on that. Referenda are about personal choices and beliefs. I think the media focus on all these "big beasts" and so on is pretty stupid - someone could think Boris is a total arse, and still vote Out no problem, or think Corbyn is a dangerous terrorist supporting allotment spanker and vote In without a second choice.
The divying of things up along political party lines I think is only happening because political journalists find it difficult to see the world through any other lens.
Good point. I think Bojo, Farage, and Gove, are idiots at the best of times, but I'll still be voting No
KInda sad that I'm on the same side as people like that
Dakka members may or may not be aware of this interesting polling news this week: ICM polls have shown a lead for Leave on the online poll, but the telephone poll shows a clear lead for remain!
Very strange. ICM are respected pollsters, so I doubt if the methodology is to blame here. I've been rooting around for some explanation from those more qualified than me, but I've drawn a blank. Anyway, here's the polls causing the news.
As always, undecideds are left out, and the sample size is 1000.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
One thing i haven't heard anyone throw out there is; If it's such a good idea to join a united states of something wouldn't it be more advantageous to join the united states of America?
Heresy i know and i wouldn't want that, but i don't want to be part of the united states of Europe either.
SirDonlad wrote: One thing i haven't heard anyone throw out there is; If it's such a good idea to join a united states of something wouldn't it be more advantageous to join the united states of America?
Heresy i know and i wouldn't want that, but i don't want to be part of the united states of Europe either.
The USA was able to implement its system from day one.
The EU however, as you know, is a collection of sovereign nations with rich history, and varied customs that have developed over the centuries etc etc
with the EU morphing from a loose economic zone to the modern behemoth it is now. It's hard to compare the two and it would be even harder to force all the sovereign nations of Europe into a European version of the USA, even if everybody agreed on it.
Polls are all over the place. For a start older people are more likely to vote, polls indicate one thing but the shy right wing anti immigration vote is definitely a thing, or people could be more keen to make the effort to play it safe and vote in once they get to a polling station.
The EU however, as you know, is a collection of sovereign nations with rich history, and varied customs that have developed over the centuries etc etc
But not for long!
That five presidents stated it in writing; you get involved, you slowly relinquish your sovereignty.
The point i was making is that if we give up that, then we may as well join with the united states of America and try to create the united states of the northern hemisphere (USNH) - they all speak our language (more or less), we'd be no less respected diplomatically than we are with the EU and then there would be a chance to integrate russia and build a road bridge between them and America so you could drive from one side of the atlantic to the other around the entire world!
Howard A Treesong wrote: Polls are all over the place. For a start older people are more likely to vote, polls indicate one thing but the shy right wing anti immigration vote is definitely a thing, or people could be more keen to make the effort to play it safe and vote in once they get to a polling station.
I'm thinking along these lines, myself. The UKIP vote will definitely be out in force on June 23rd, this after all, is what they've been waiting for. As for online poll vs. telephone, I was going to chalk it up to the older people on the phone, and the younger people online, but then I read an article about the rising number of older people getting their mitts on computers, so what do I know?
The EU however, as you know, is a collection of sovereign nations with rich history, and varied customs that have developed over the centuries etc etc
But not for long!
That five presidents stated it in writing; you get involved, you slowly relinquish your sovereignty.
The point i was making is that if we give up that, then we may as well join with the united states of America and try to create the united states of the northern hemisphere (USNH) - they all speak our language (more or less), we'd be no less respected diplomatically than we are with the EU and then there would be a chance to integrate russia and build a road bridge between them and America so you could drive from one side of the atlantic to the other around the entire world!
Everybody wins!!!
/humor
But in the unlikely event of the UK joining the USA, we would have to suffer root beer...and Texas!
On a serious note, the British public would never agree to the 2nd amendment. Not in a million years. But that's a discussion for another thread.
I'm on the leave side at the moment but won't be fussed too badly if we stay in as up here EU is generally seen as quite positive. In fact for a lot of people it's seen as a buffer between us and the tories/westminster.
Whether that's the case or not I'm not convinced but TTIP is the step too far for me. England is already losing her NHS I don't want us to lose our's as well.
IMHO I'm also sure that remain will ultimately be victorious in this but England alone will ultimately dictate what happen's in this refereundum and I'm again pretty sure that, as a mercantile nation, they will go where the money is and vote to remain.
"In a way I'm glad that the UK is experiencing this, it may broaden awareness of the crappy tactics in the media. Everyone seemed hunky dory with this crap when they were doing it to Scotland." This!
I just hope that when this is over we realize that we will need to take a good look at our press. They have been utterly disgusting for decades and more and yet a good few folk still rely on them for information and facts but don't realize all they get is opinion.
The problem with phone polls is that try as you might to get a random sample, ultimately you only get people who have the patience to do a poll on the phone and are at home during those hours, mostly the retired and unemployed I imagine.
Watching Boris and Farage on the news this evening was enoough to drive me out of the house and deliver several hundred Labour IN leaflets in my area.
The Quitters basic argument is this: everything that is wrong with our country we can blame the EU. Quit the EU and we can fix everything.
Beautifully simple and and totally ignoring the fact that many of the problems facing modern Britain are caused by our own inability to make the right decisions.
If the Quitters win, the blame game will turn elsewhere, and that is when I really do fear it could get ugly. We are not immune to the rise of a nasty, vicious, populist, racist right and a Quit victory could see such a force develop as no, leaving the EU at best does not fix our problems, at worse makes things much worse.
FacebookJunkie wrote: Watching Boris and Farage on the news this evening was enoough to drive me out of the house and deliver several hundred Labour IN leaflets in my area.
The Quitters basic argument is this: everything that is wrong with our country we can blame the EU. Quit the EU and we can fix everything.
Beautifully simple and and totally ignoring the fact that many of the problems facing modern Britain are caused by our own inability to make the right decisions.
If the Quitters win, the blame game will turn elsewhere, and that is when I really do fear it could get ugly. We are not immune to the rise of a nasty, vicious, populist, racist right and a Quit victory could see such a force develop as no, leaving the EU at best does not fix our problems, at worse makes things much worse.
Hyperbole. Leaving the EU will not make jackboot production soar in Great Britain.
And actually, the basic argument for leaving is that we don't want to be part of the United States of Europe. I (and I daresay many others like me) would happily vote to stay if that meant the status quo. Unfortunately, according to the Five Presidents report from the EU (signed by the five most powerful bureaucrats as a statement of intent), this is coming up within the next few years:-
...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.
And y'know? I'm not so keen on Brussels deciding they should be dictating where my Government spends its budget thanks.
But feel free to keep painting those voting 'Out' as simple minded right wingers. I know it makes it easier to dismiss us, and not engage on any substantial level....
One Remainer I know of is also an SNP fanatic. Unsurprisingly, to him it's OK for Scotland to keep demanding referendums until they vote to leave the UK, yet Farrage is the devil incarnate for wanting the same thing for the UK with regards to the EU. He tries to justify it by claiming that only major constitutional change (leaving the EU for example) warrants more referendums for Scotland. But if the same conditions were set for the EU referendum (a remain vote will only stand so long as the EU remains exactly as it is at present and never ever changes its consitution.) it's just Leavers being Fascists.
Anyway, I'm voting to leave because I don't want to be apart of an ever closer union. Especially when this Union is run by an unaccountable cabal whos incompetence is now become dangerous. Remainers tell me that we'll lose influence outside of the EU, but I disagree. Inside the EU we're just No. 28 at the table. And we're often outvoted. They say stay inside and fight for reform. We've been in here for 40 odd years and it's only getting worse. The whole moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back thing for example. That needs knocked on the head but nobody is interested in stopping it so why keep paying for it?
But outside we can set our own agendas and it'll be them who have to respond to us. Turkey is outside of the EU yet it's playing them like a banjo.
And never forget, we buy more from the eu than they do from us. We are effectively the customer and they are the shop. If they start screwing around with us we can simply take our business elsewhere and deprave them of that money, which they sorely need at the moment. How long will Germany let tariffs on those VWs and Beamers stand for? After all, in the EU what Germany wants Germany gets.
FacebookJunkie wrote: Watching Boris and Farage on the news this evening was enoough to drive me out of the house and deliver several hundred Labour IN leaflets in my area.
The Quitters basic argument is this: everything that is wrong with our country we can blame the EU. Quit the EU and we can fix everything.
Beautifully simple and and totally ignoring the fact that many of the problems facing modern Britain are caused by our own inability to make the right decisions.
If the Quitters win, the blame game will turn elsewhere, and that is when I really do fear it could get ugly. We are not immune to the rise of a nasty, vicious, populist, racist right and a Quit victory could see such a force develop as no, leaving the EU at best does not fix our problems, at worse makes things much worse.
I'm voting to leave, but for the record, I will put my hand up and say that the EU has done some good over the years. A loose trading alliance, with co-operation on security and the environment makes perfect sense to me, and probably nearly everybody else. I'm in favour of that.
And if there was a genuine attempt to really reform the EU for the better, make it more accountable and less bureaucratic I'd probably be in favour of that as well.
Unfortunately, the EU seems unwilling and unable to make this change, paralysed as it is by inertia left, right, and centre, with the 5 presidents report being the final straw for me.
And no, I don't blame Europe for everything - the incompetence of our politicians is not news to me.
Future War Cultist wrote: ... Remainers tell me that we'll lose influence outside of the EU, but I disagree. Inside the EU we're just No. 28 at the table. And we're often outvoted. They say stay inside and fight for reform. We've been in here for 40 odd years and it's only getting worse. ...
The influence argument always makes me laugh. Couple the fact that we've had a string of spineless politicians, of both colours, acceding to EU demands, other European countries not wanting what the UK is offering (or, I suspect, want to prevent the UK competing with other states too much) along with the UK's continuing lackluster attempts at reform, means that our "influence" is a joke. We have more influence in non EU countries and trade more with non EU countries, so I fail to understand what benefit remaining will have.
As for No. 28 at the EU table, too right. This picture pretty much explains why I think the absurd argument that the UK in the EU has more power is a joke:
My polling card arrived today. It feels more official now.
@ zedmeister
That perfectly sums up my position. A picture is worth a thousand words after all.
Why stay in an organisation and 'fight' (yeah right) for reform when you can just leave it and not have to put up with the things that you think should be reformed?
Obama wants us to stay and so does Cameron, in my mind that means get the hell out.
Also the whole 'EU Superstate' thing is being talked about again.
When I was at an interview with journalists in Brussels about 8 years ago I remember when the MEPs basically dodged the question and kept trying to deflect any talk of an 'EU Army'
It's where its headed, it might take 5 years it might take 25 but it will get to a point where people will think its 'inevitable' and then it will happen.
By giving this 'FU' to the EU it can be a good thing and shake it up.
When I was making a case to a pro EU supporter that Turkey will be fast tracked in, Cameron's 'deal' will be vetoed in the event of an In vote and that the Superstate is the EU's ultimate goal, they kept hitting me with 'you can't prove that. Where's the proof?' The problem for me was, I didn't have the proof. But all these things are going to happen. You only have to look at the EU's past actions and the thoughts and actions of its leaders to know this.
It's like the EU is a well known gangster. You know what they're doing and what they're planning to do but there's no actual physical proof of it. Yet. I will admit though that I am a poor debater and this guy obliviously has is brief in order. You know how a good lawyer can defeat a bad one in court even if they're peddling a falsehood? It's like that, sort of.
He is an outstanding guy though and there's no hostility between us. I hope
They also kept saying that the only way to push for reform was to stay inside. Despite the fact that we are outvoted on most matters and it'll only get worse as more countries are let in and we become number 29 at the table...then number 32...then number 40, and so on. In the fact If anything, staying inside will only make things even worse. Because now their attitude will be 'no, we aren't pursuing these ideas of yours. What are you going to do about it? Leave? Yeah right!'.
We've come too far to turn back now. We have to leave. I fear that if we don't we will be making our single biggest mistake as a nation since deciding to get involved in WW1. Because the end result of staying in is being only 28th of a nation...and reducing that fraction even more in future.
Despite the fear filled articles and buffoonery from both Leave and Remain, I've done a fair bit of research (admittedly forced due to the childishness of the main players) and I think I'd quite like the UK to remain part of the EU.
Future War Cultist wrote: that the Superstate is the EU's ultimate goal, they kept hitting me with 'you can't prove that. Where's the proof?' The problem for me was, I didn't have the proof.
It's spelled out there, in black and white. The next stage to the EU Superstate will be towards a full fiscal union - everyone is taxed and Brussels decides where to spend it. You can bet your last penny that the next major treaty change will involve the first steps towards this. And then onwards and no turning back. Ever.
Future War Cultist wrote: that the Superstate is the EU's ultimate goal, they kept hitting me with 'you can't prove that. Where's the proof?' The problem for me was, I didn't have the proof.
It's spelled out there, in black and white. The next stage to the EU Superstate will be towards a full fiscal union - everyone is taxed and Brussels decides where to spend it. You can bet your last penny that the next major treaty change will involve the first steps towards this. And then onwards and no turning back. Ever.
And if we dislike how those taxes are being spent, what chance do we have of voting out a European government? NONE.
At least we can toss out the Tories or Labour when we get fed up with them. We can't vote out a government if we're just one province out of 28.
I do not consent to the dilution of my democratic influence as a British voter.
should take the lead on this to help Belgium.
nerve to say they won't deliver this leaflet to my house in Scotland until May 9th to avoid disrupting elections up here! 
I just hope that when this is over we realize that we will need to take a good look at our press. They have been utterly disgusting for decades and more and yet a good few folk still rely on them for information and facts but don't realize all they get is opinion. 
