EU referendum

[Chippy_boy]

What people ignore though is there isn't a best for Britain here , there is essentially a vote for what is best for the City of London and the wealthier parts of the U.K. and the other side is what is going to be best for the regions. Make no mistake much of Britain will suffer greatly with an out vote especially the Celtic nations but I have no doubt the City of London and the wealthy south east would gain if Britain inevitably shifter to the right if the UK broke up and if pesky things like labour rights, safety laws etc could be significantly weakened.

So it depends if you really care what will help Wales or what will Help Surrey as there is no national interest - this is true in the general election too of course so not only a european issue.

The great Tory trick is to work strongly in the interest of less than 5% of the population but to convince enough of the rest of the population that they can and should be in that 5% and to vote for them.

And yet the PM - who is by your reckoning clearl evil - is campaigning to stay in. Hmmmmm.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Politics doesn't work like that anymore

There is some left v right
But there is also liberal v conservative
Progressive v regressive
Internationalist vs isolationist

Deluded vs sensible.

In case you forget where socialism leads...

 

[Metal Biker]

I am not happy with Cameron making Osbourne chancellor, with farage abstaining on a decent commissioner , I am happy with a pro euro MP supporting an EU commissioner I like , I was happy when Blair nominated Brown. But my happiness is irellevant as it is shaped my views, what matters is that governments that are elected by people make decisions when they win and that is why they elect them. I don't expect Cameron to check in with the electorate every time a cabinet minister resigns or an EU commissioner changes. For that I have voted in elections be they national or European.

Those are changes within the political parties, not rule of government.
You have no say in how a party is run, but the EU Commission and Parliament aren't set up like the movements of positions in the Conservative Party.

We don't get to vote for which ruling government party chooses or appoints it's members, but we DO get the chance to vote who the ruling government is, unlike the EU. We do not get to choose who the ruling parliament is. Therefore we have no say over whom that parliament appoints, and it's the Commissioners who are appointed that govern Europe.

There are several 'parties' in the EU Parliament, the largest being the PPE. Can you remember their campaign to British people to elect one of their representatives? Many of the UKIP MEP's that were voted are members of the EFD. Do you remember that being part of the European Elections? The European Parliament is a mock parliament, it's only purpose is to appoint the Commissioners that govern the EU. The public cannot propose a commissioner be removed from their position. It is the absolute worst example of democracy. The way the EU parliament and the way it appoints commissioners does not correlate at all with the democratic process of British politics.

 

[Metal Biker]

I think you are being ridiculously blinkered. Is it not possible that all of the people you mention actually want what's best for Britain? We are talking about people who chose a career in politics where their earnings are fraction of what they could earn in the private sector pursuing more commercially rewarding opportunities. Politicians by the vast majority are in politics because they care about things and want to make a difference. It's as simple as that.

And as to the arguments against leaving, have a read of my post. If we leave, we will either have to sign up to the same set of rules that we are bound by already (in which case, what's the point of leaving) or we will have to trade with the EU on a restrictive basis with significant barriers and tarifs. Those are the choices and neither makes for a sensible option.

You can think what you like, that's your opinion, doesn't mean you're right or it's true.

Do you believe, for example that TTIP is best for Britain? The public don't, the EU does. I've never trusted anyone who 'chose' a career in politics rather than those who became politicians because they wanted to make a difference. I've read your post and all your claims have been countered before by others, and I don't mean on this forum.

 

[Metal Biker]

do you never hear...

Right Wing = jobs, prosperity & wealth for all
Left Wing = loss of jobs, and its the poorest in society will suffer the most

?

Not often.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You can think what you like, that's your opinion, doesn't mean you're right or it's true.

And neither does it mean that because it's only an opinion, then it is wrong.

I've read your post and all your claims have been countered before by others, and I don't mean on this forum.

The Outers claim that the EU would have to negotiate an unfettered trade agreement with us, because it's in their interest; they export more to us than we do to them. That's the sum total of the Outers' argument in this regard. And it's not very convincing at all. Well, it's just rubbish actually.

The EU, let us all remember is not a single entity, it's 28 member states. How many of those do you think export more to us than we do to them? The answer is one, Germany. The other 26 are net importers who would have no interest whatsoever in agreeing on the basis that "they export more to us than we do them". It's a pitiful argument.

 

[Monkfish]

Deluded vs sensible.

In case you forget where socialism leads...

socialism leads to Salford?

 

[AlgarveBlu]

Looks like the Germans are going to play hard ball with the Greeks again on the latest developments today- from Guardian -

Greece hasn’t yet convinced its creditors that it has done enough to quality for debt relief, as they wrangle over bad debt rules and pension reforms.
The creditors are understood to be pushing for Greece to sign up to extra austerity, in case the bailout programme goes off course.

How do all the people in the remain camp who use the argument of backdoor socialism via the EU reconcile those comments with seeing a country that has basically been decimated with austerity measures have further measures put against them by the very body they are championing for on socialist causes - I just can't work it out as this has been an exercise in social genocide by the EU on a member state.

 

[Metal Biker]

And neither does it mean that because it's only an opinion, then it is wrong.



The Outers claim that the EU would have to negotiate an unfettered trade agreement with us, because it's in their interest; they export more to us than we do to them. That's the sum total of the Outers' argument in this regard. And it's not very convincing at all. Well, it's just rubbish actually.

The EU, let us all remember is not a single entity, it's 28 member states. How many of those do you think export more to us than we do to them? The answer is one, Germany. The other 26 are net importers who would have no interest whatsoever in agreeing on the basis that "they export more to us than we do them". It's a pitiful argument.

Actually it has little to do with it being in their interest and more that it's stipulated that a trade agreement must be achieved in the event of an exit as per Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

The EU is 28 member states....now. What it wants is a single European state, where sovereignty is removed and the ECB, Brussles becomes the central power across the continent. By voting to remain we're saying we want to be a part of that and true many Britons do feel that way and it's appealing to them. To myself and many others it is not. That is the main focus of many outers, not just trade, immigration or any of the other short sighted claims made by the remain campaign. We wanted a Europe we could trade with, not be governed by, is that too much to ask? The reforms that Cameron has put forward that does appeal to certain out voters, hasn't even been accepted. We could find ourselves in a situation where the remain arguement sways out voters claiming they've attained all the issues they have with the EU are now resolved as a result of the reforms, vote to remain, then the EU rejects those reforms and we're back to square one.

The actually main crux of the out campaign is "Love Europe, out of the EU"; trade with, but not be governed.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Actually it has little to do with it being in their interest and more that it's stipulated that a trade agreement must be achieved in the event of an exit as per Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

It doesn't say anything about agreeing to it without tarifs nor binding agreement on free movement of labour, human rights etc. We will necessarily have to be bound by those things if we want a free trade agreement. And of course we won't want that, so we won't agree. And Europe won't agree to give us what we want without it. So it will be stalemate and the negotiations will go on for years and years and years and all the time, businesses won't want to invest because they don't know what the outcome will be. We'll be in a slump for the next decade, guaranteed.

The EU is 28 member states....now. What it wants is a single European state, where sovereignty is removed and the ECB, Brussles becomes the central power across the continent. By voting to remain we're saying we want to be a part of that and true many Britons do feel that way and it's appealing to them. To myself and many others it is not. That is the main focus of many outers, not just trade, immigration or any of the other short sighted claims made by the remain campaign. We wanted a Europe we could trade with, not be governed by, is that too much to ask? The reforms that Cameron has put forward that does appeal to certain out voters, hasn't even been accepted. We could find ourselves in a situation where the remain arguement sways out voters claiming they've attained all the issues they have with the EU are now resolved as a result of the reforms, vote to remain, then the EU rejects those reforms and we're back to square one.

The actually main crux of the out campaign is "Love Europe, out of the EU"

Well I agree that staying in carries all of those risks. Whereas leaving will be shit as well. Basically we are being given two shit scenarios and asked to choice the one which we feel will be marginally less shit.

 

[Chippy_boy]

socialism leads to Salford?

Actually it's Russia, but now you mention it, yes.

 

[kippax4ever]

I

And neither does it mean that because it's only an opinion, then it is wrong.



The Outers claim that the EU would have to negotiate an unfettered trade agreement with us, because it's in their interest; they export more to us than we do to them. That's the sum total of the Outers' argument in this regard. And it's not very convincing at all. Well, it's just rubbish actually.

The EU, let us all remember is not a single entity, it's 28 member states. How many of those do you think export more to us than we do to them? The answer is one, Germany. The other 26 are net importers who would have no interest whatsoever in agreeing on the basis that "they export more to us than we do them". It's a pitiful argument.

If the Germans say jump the rest will say how High,as they no were their bread buttered..We have nothing to fear & in my opinion we be better off out

 

[YPhrunts]

Was it not you who described going in after a vote as being frogmarched. Was it not you who made the paying of a £150 licence for a chemical you admit you don't understand into an earth shattering problem? I answered perhaps I should have said ...... Eh?

It typifies the nonsense of this debate inners claiming we will all be 4000 a year worse off and outers claiming democracy is a frog March and we should get out because beekeeper say so and global agriculture will collapse because of a nominal fee.

I did describe it as being frog marched into the Common Market because we never had the chance to vote on what Ted Heath decided in his wisdom was good for us all. The rubbish you have written in response to that leaves me somewhat bemused (eh?).

Who said I didn't understand glyphosate? If you read what I said i would rather not take this thread into a scientific thesis. The fact that I have to pay £150 for a licence to spray glyphosate has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem it would lead to if it was banned completely. So your last sentence is complete nonsense. Please read with understanding and stop jumping to conclusions that are not there. To make it simple for you here's a couple of links on how we ended up where we are.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/howthebritishmedia.htm

The 'frog march' was an act of political vandalism. Some see it as an illegal act.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/euillegally.html

 

[Chippy_boy]

If the Germans say jump the rest will say how High,as they no were their bread buttered..We have nothing to fear & in my opinion we be better off out

So the Germans will say yes and the other 26 - the vast majority of whom would be damaged by such an agreement - will just say OK then? Seems like one hell of a risky strategy relying on that, doesn't it.

 

[CityStu]

So the Germans will say yes and the other 26 - the vast majority of whom would be damaged by such an agreement - will just say OK then? Seems like one hell of a risky strategy relying on that, doesn't it.

Currently it is us and Germany as the big net contributors. In the event of our exit they would pull all of the strings. Would the likes of Poland really put up much of a fight if Germany could make their lives in the EU much more difficult?

I think a Brexit would have serious implications to the EU. Many other states (certainly the Netherlands) may fancy a referendum of their own... Is it not better to get out before the shit hits the fan?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Currently it is us and Germany as the big net contributors. In the event of our exit they would pull all of the strings. Would the likes of Poland really put up much of a fight if Germany could make their lives in the EU much more difficult?

I think a Brexit would have serious implications to the EU. Many other states (certainly the Netherlands) may fancy a referendum of their own... Is it not better to get out before the shit hits the fan?

You're not kidding. Perhaps you've missed the headlines? "Germans want a vote on the EU too' Merkel hell as Germany calls for UK-style referendum" (March 21st, Daily Express) or "Now French voters call for FREXIT after Germany face demands for EU referendum" (March 28, same)

How on earth could the EU allow us the free trade agreement the Outers seek, with this as the backdrop? Agreeing to give us everything we want and telling their own voters to STFU? I don't think so, do you?

As I said before, giving us everything we want would mean virtually every country would look at what we had negotiated and decide that what we had was a better proposition that staying in. They would ALL want to leave. The EU would be finished if they agreed to it, and as a result, they could never agree.

There's another key point, and to save typing, I'll quote from the Guardian:

"Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules.

Margaret Thatcher was the first to realise that Britain’s specialisation in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO".

 

[Metal Biker]

It doesn't say anything about agreeing to it without tarifs nor binding agreement on free movement of labour, human rights etc. We will necessarily have to be bound by those things if we want a free trade agreement. And of course we won't want that, so we won't agree. And Europe won't agree to give us what we want without it. So it will be stalemate and the negotiations will go on for years and years and years and all the time, businesses won't want to invest because they don't know what the outcome will be. We'll be in a slump for the next decade, guaranteed.



Well I agree that staying in carries all of those risks. Whereas leaving will be shit as well. Basically we are being given two shit scenarios and asked to choice the one which we feel will be marginally less shit.

No, it doesn't, but as myself and many others have stated, that hasn't stopped the EU trading with China, Canada, the US, Mexico, South Korea, the UAE, Russia, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa, to name but a few. The UK may have to agree to continuing free movement of labour, but nobody really cares about that, nor is it a sticking point as an argument to leave. It might be for some, but not all and from what i've seen its a minor complaint.But the fact remains that the EU MUST reach an agreement with any former member state.

There's more "doom and gloom" scenarios with the "negotiations will go on for years!" Why? Businesses want to make money, Britain and Europe will want a quick negotiation as the longer it continues the worse the markets will perform and that's the last thing the Eurozone (which will fair much worse off as it's already plummeting) wants or needs. Cameron and Osborne want to stay it; in the event of a Leave result why does anyone think they'll start asking for ridiculous demands? Unless you believe their stance on "In" is disingenuous? Do you really think European governments will be that petty, that because Britain wants to govern itself it'll not look at every aspect of its demands and pooh-pooh them out of spite? Because if so then we'd best stop having the remain campaign flaunt the "reforms have been put forward" argument as an incentive to remain, because if they wouldn't agree to demands from a leave vote, why are they obligated to agree to reforms in a remain one? The same logic applies.

The truth is nobody can tell what is going to happen as a result of leave or remain. With leave the EU could reject every notion Britain puts forward for trade and the saga continues for years. OR, they could reach a quick agreement to avoid catastrophe as a Britain leave result affects the EU just as severely. An In result could see Britain's reforms being accepted OR rejected, leaving us back at square one with Europe.

Your statement about being asked to choose between a less shittier vote reminds me of a humourous analogy I saw a few days ago; "Yes, a ship is safest in the harbour, but that's not why ships are built".

 

[purplenose]

Anybody who believes a single word out of Cameron or Osbournes mouths is an absolute fool. No debate needed....if you believe them there is no hope for you at all.

Even if it turned out it was going to cost £4k per household it would be well worth it given what the alternative is...

In June we all decide whether or not we remain England/UK or whether we sell our arses to France and Germany who in turn will decide who bums us.....anyone voting to stay in on the back of this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves....infact in my humble opinion anyone who votes against remaining an independant nation, which is exactly what this vote is, should be ashamed of themselves. Tin hat on.....but guess what..i dont give a fuck.

 

[jimbopm]

Anybody who believes a single word out of Cameron or Osbournes mouths is an absolute fool. No debate needed....if you believe them there is no hope for you at all.

Even if it turned out it was going to cost £4k per household it would be well worth it given what the alternative is...

In June we all decide whether or not we remain England/UK or whether we sell our arses to France and Germany who in turn will decide who bums us.....anyone voting to stay in on the back of this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves....infact in my humble opinion anyone who votes against remaining an independant nation, which is exactly what this vote is, should be ashamed of themselves. Tin hat on.....but guess what..i dont give a fuck.

Thanks for your excellent analysis.

 

[SWP's back]

You're not kidding. Perhaps you've missed the headlines? "Germans want a vote on the EU too' Merkel hell as Germany calls for UK-style referendum" (March 21st, Daily Express) or "Now French voters call for FREXIT after Germany face demands for EU referendum" (March 28, same)

How on earth could the EU allow us the free trade agreement the Outers seek, with this as the backdrop? Agreeing to give us everything we want and telling their own voters to STFU? I don't think so, do you?

As I said before, giving us everything we want would mean virtually every country would look at what we had negotiated and decide that what we had was a better proposition that staying in. They would ALL want to leave. The EU would be finished if they agreed to it, and as a result, they could never agree.

There's another key point, and to save typing, I'll quote from the Guardian:

"Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules.

Margaret Thatcher was the first to realise that Britain’s specialisation in services – not only finance, but also law, accountancy, media, architecture, pharmaceutical research and so on – makes membership in the EU single market critical. It makes little economic difference to Germany, France, or Italy whether Britain is an EU member or simply in the WTO".

So if even you can see that most countries people would prefer to be out of the EU and to simply have free trade agreements, can't you see why the outers want that rather than a sovereign Europe?