Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 zedmeister wrote:
Talk about sour grapes!

Of course, any good solicitor will back you up unto your last penny...

Did you not read redS8n's post? They're dropping the lawsuit.

Yes, but "What is clear now is that if we were to pursue a judicial review, according to legal experts, we would win.". That's what he's referring to.

Aye, any half way savvy legal expert will never say that your case is hopeless...

The eu propaganda machine again
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2016-0021+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

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.

Indeed. UKIP MEP's voted against ivory trafficing laws and routinely don't bother turning up for things they should be representing the UK on.

Then blame the EU for not looking out for UK interests...

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.

That is my usual go to example.

Today is the official campaign start date. Only ten more weeks of this

I've known for years which way I would vote, and I suspect most people on dakka made their minds up months ago as well.

I'm ready to vote now!

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/angela-merkel-agrees-prosecution-comedian-erdogan-poem?CMP=fb_gu

..wow.


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.

Human Rights one is, as discussed, a lie.

 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.

Well the last one (as usual) is nonsense.


The Convention is not tied into the EU dammit! Even Russia and Turkey are parlay to it.

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.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well the last one (as usual) is nonsense.


The Convention is not tied into the EU dammit! Even Russia and Turkey are parlay to it.

Yes, but is it or is it not a condition of membership?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well the last one (as usual) is nonsense.


The Convention is not tied into the EU dammit! Even Russia and Turkey are parlay to it.

Yes, but is it or is it not a condition of membership?

It is, and it's something we could potentially pull out of if we vote out - though that isn't gauranteed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664

This puts a very different slant on things.

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.