EU referendum deal (title edited)

[RandomJ]

Still on the fence but I can't be the only one who finds the attitude of the yes campaigners incredibly un-British. Thank fuck these cowards weren't around during the second world war.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

It's interesting how the arse has fallen out of the pound over the last few days with heightened fears of the UK leaving the EU.

I've heard several economic analyses today and the most positive about leaving the EU predicted that we would break even with 10 to 15 years.

 

[Chancy Termites]

It's interesting how the arse has fallen out of the pound over the last few days with heightened fears of the UK leaving the EU.

I've heard several economic analyses today and the most positive about leaving the EU predicted that we would break even with 10 to 15 years.

Incorrect. Pound fell on uncertainty, as it always does.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Incorrect. Pound fell on uncertainty, as it always does.

The reason for the uncertainty was the increased risk of the UK leaving the EU following Boris picking the exit campaign. Yes true!

 

[Chancy Termites]

The reason for the uncertainty was the increased risk of the UK leaving the EU following Boris picking the exit campaign. Yes true!

Precisely - the uncertainty, not the leaving. If the polls showed 90% for or 90% against leaving, there would be less uncertainty.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Where on earth do you get idea from?, the EU was formed to make some rich countries richer and grab power from the hard of thinking.

Here you go:

"The European Coal and Steel Community was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible"

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Precisely - the uncertainty, not the leaving. If the polls showed 90% for or 90% against leaving, there would be less uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty if 90 percent wanted the current state of affairs to continue!

 

[Chancy Termites]

There is no uncertainty if 90 percent wanted the current state of affairs to continue!

We agree then. Your first post on the subject could be interpreted as you suggesting that leaving could cause the pound to fall. Once the referendum result is known, whichever way, the uncertainty will end and the pound could then rise or fall whether we stay in or leave.

 

[Chancy Termites]

Please could a pro-EU poster sell me the benefits of having legislation introduced by a committee of appointees rather than by a government directly elected by citizens?

Thanks.

Anybody? Why is it better to have laws made by people we're not allowed to vote for?

 

[Chipmeister]

People who have no accountability and who by their very existence aim to centralise everything for their own benefit.

I'm not against the EU concept of a trading group but the way it has evolved to a super state controlled by Brussels with no accountability, is for no ones benefit other the bearaucrats themselves and one could argue certain countries who are now totally enveloped by the whole concept that they are stuck with it.

 

[blueish swede]

Is Britain going to be run from Blackpool if it opts out?

 

[Monkfish]

Anybody? Why is it better to have laws made by people we're not allowed to vote for?

Because they might have some experience in the area they make laws for?
Or you can have a health Secretary who knows nothing about health

Same reason the Lord's often makes much better legislation than the commons

 

[EalingBlue2]

Please could a pro-EU poster sell me the benefits of having legislation introduced by a committee of appointees rather than by a government directly elected by citizens?

Thanks.

I will make a more general point rather than an EU one.

In my view democracy is in an absolute crisis globally driven by short term thinking, a medi dominated in countries by wealthy businessmen with very specific self interested agenda and a 24 hour news cycle based on sound bites. Few politicians anymore (this is aimed at both sides) have any interest in long term politics , they are interested in keeping their position in power in their party through polls and then winning the next election. As such democracy is increasingly selling out countries futures for infividuals short term individual goals.

For politicians Decisions have therefore become populist, the truth doesn't matter , people have moved on to the next story already, winning today's news focuses them and most politicians are happy to keep going down the river as long as the waterfall is only reached after they have moved on.

Bureaucrats on the other hands are paid to be in their job, they don't need to make "popular" decisions to stay there, they don't need to appeal to the lowest common denominator and they don't need to make short term self interested decisions. If they want to make the right call they can.

It is why so many of the economic powerhouses, countries with the best infrastructure, etc have often been far from the most democratic. They could be genuine democracies but with a history of stable government but they have long term plans. On the other hand those that change the most, are the most political and the most populist are the ones that fail.

add to that the fact appointees can be experts in what they do, they can have properly researched it.

Letting elected politicians run economies and make cases on law would be a bit like letting them become generals in the army, letting Jeremy hunt start being a surgeon.

I am not saying democracy is wrong but putting all eggs in one basket is a real risk. Brit's in currently has checks to too much short term idiocy from our politicians provided by Europe due to the scandalous absence of an effective second chamber or other branches of government without it a prime minister and their government elected by in Cameron's case 1 in 6 of the population could run amock.

So in many ways I am far more comfortable with experts with no real vested interests driving the specifics of laws, the economy etc with the politicians setting the long term strategic goals and plans to drive the country where the people want to go, which is unfortunately very far away from what we have today.

Te other thing with democracy is this whole concept on national interest which kings invented to serve the interests of their whole wealth and power that we all fell for.

What Britain has is the individual interest of 60+ million people and national interest does not exist. The rich across Europe (indeed the world) share a common interest, the unemployed share a common interest, the young or old share a common interest and these interests are far more fundamental than the interests I have being born British or living in the UK.

But like religion , nationalism has created a tool to control the people, a strong emotive tool that allows them to be controlled.

 

[smudgedj]

Is Britain going to be run from Blackpool if it opts out?

very good lol

 

[Two Gun Bob]

Is Britain going to be run from Blackpool if it opts out?

Hopefully it wont be run from Brussels but as per your fine observation Blackpool as a candidate has much going for it.
A new promenade,three piers a tower with a lift,the winter gardens,the beach with it's fine golden sands,the donkey rides,the little stick of Blackpool rock the ecological marine life,the camaraderie the quality entertainment,the fun fair,the full English breakfasts,the Wurlitzer organ and the tea dance;
And so what pray tell does Brussels have to offer our magnificent sceptred isle save for the dummy spitting and venom ?

 

[EalingBlue2]

Is Britain going to be run from Blackpool if it opts out?

One thing is for sure London runs Britain for the interests of London but Brussells doesn't run Europe for the interests of Brussells.

Whatever Britain does it will be two groups with the interests of the south east and some large multinationals competing against each other for their interests and people over the country will jump on one side based on arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with what is good for them their families or their communities.

 

[Chipmeister]

So Brussels runs Europe for the interests of who ?

 

[Chancy Termites]

Because they might have some experience in the area they make laws for?
Or you can have a health Secretary who knows nothing about health

Same reason the Lord's often makes much better legislation than the commons

OK then, how well would you say the experience of the UK's nominated commissioner qualifies him or her for the subject he or she has been put in charge of?

Of course, the big difference between the House of Lords and EU Commission is that the House of Lords doesn't actually make any laws. It only gets to tidy up those new laws that are put forward by the elected government.

 

[Chancy Termites]

I will make a more general point rather than an EU one.

What you say is arguably true of China up to a point and when you see entire villages and towns being demolished to make way for new infrastructure projects it's certainly very impressive to see how they can get things done.

I guess you disagree with the aims of the pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong then?

The other examples of government by committee around the world are less positive than China, I'd suggest. The USSR and Eastern European countries up to the 80s, in common with China, all needed to invest a lot in monitoring their own populations to avoid insurgency, and had to carefully control the media, banning and blocking whatever outlets they could, where those outlets opposed the aims and set-up of the ruling committees. Democracy is a safety valve, and when people have no democratic say, then violence and rebellion become the only means to make changes.

 

[Monkfish]

OK then, how well would you say the experience of the UK's nominated commissioner qualifies him or her for the subject he or she has been put in charge of?

After reading his wiki, so so