EU referendum

[EalingBlue2]

No, no, no, no, no. That's not how it works. A member is nominated by a member state and the parliament votes for it, yes, but the public has absolutely NO say in exactly who the candidate put forward is. No democratic process is followed in campaigning for who should be nominated. It is worth pointing out as well that all EU commissioners do not act in the interest of the nation from which they were selected, they act in accordance to European interests. For example a British EU Commissioner does not act on behalf of interests that affect the UK directly, but only those of the EU.

In your interest, you have UKIP members making up the majority of British influence in the EU. They are your voice in deciding who should and should not be appointed as one of the unelected commissioners. Are you happy about that? Knowing that Britain's representatives in Europe are eurosceptic and would likely vote or abstain from voting on any or every EU commissioner appointment? Because that's how the EU system works.

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.

 

[jimbopm]

No it didn`t, it totally ignored any effect from regaining control of our borders and being able to pick what kind of people and how many we let in.
I note that yet again you are unable to admit the studies you tried to pass off as evidence were nonsense ;0)

Firstly if we drop into the EEA (The best case scenario as highlighted by many studies), then we have NO change to free movement. So there needs to be no analysis of migration under that circumstance.

Secondly, being in control of our borders means very little, we have needed inward migration to fill labour gaps, most notably at the very low and very high end of the skills market. There is no link between unfettered migration and increased native unemployment, nor is there any link between migration and increased cost to public services, in fact migration helps pay for public services.

You're either trolling or being wilfully ignorant.

 

[EalingBlue2]

So all you'd need is to have dozens of people coming out with similar "Brexit is bad" arguments, regardless of their accuracy or credibility, as growing evidence to support a campaign to stay?

The weight of evidence as you call it is up for debate, a debate many inners choose to ignore. "It's been said, therefore it's true". Is there any skeptism in the In campaign anymore? Do you all believe at face value what they tell you? Can't you wait until people can provide a convincing counter arguement or do you demand a rebuttal to claims immediately? I'm listening to Gove's speech right now, and later i'll go over it and find out if what he's saying is feasible and accurate, regardless of the fact it serves my interest to leave, i'm not just going to accept that what he's saying is true, just as if in the next few weeks several promising 'leave' statements are made creating a weight of evidence that leaving is beneficial.

At the moment, from past experience and knowledge about the EU, i'm in favour of a leave vote. So far nothing the remain campaign has said has done enough to change my mind, rather makes me skeptical about what their true motives are about how forceful they are to wish to remain in and the rhetoric they are using which has an air of "join, or die" about it. Osbourne wants to remain, Cameron wants to remain, Corbyn, who for decades opposed Britain being in the Common Market, changed his tune. That should set alarm bells ringing, and not in the sense of the interest to remain, either.

This sums up the problems you see the in canpaign through the very same lenses I see the out campaign, all hot air and no subtle trance and based on pie in the sky imagination. All we do know is where we are today that is a fact and so there is a basis for the inners. As for the outer you who are the most reasoned on this thread from the out perspective still admit there are a number of major options if out wins and no one knows which it will be and which is achievable and many outers would find some of those options unpalatable.

I just don't see how you can have an A v B vote when B could actually be C, D or E no one knows

 

[Chippy_boy]

At the moment, from past experience and knowledge about the EU, i'm in favour of a leave vote. So far nothing the remain campaign has said has done enough to change my mind, rather makes me skeptical about what their true motives are about how forceful they are to wish to remain in and the rhetoric they are using which has an air of "join, or die" about it. Osbourne wants to remain, Cameron wants to remain, Corbyn, who for decades opposed Britain being in the Common Market, changed his tune. That should set alarm bells ringing, and not in the sense of the interest to remain, either.

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.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Firstly if we drop into the EEA (The best case scenario as highlighted by many studies), then we have NO change to free movement. So there needs to be no analysis of migration under that circumstance.

Secondly, being in control of our borders means very little, we have needed inward migration to fill labour gaps, most notably at the very low and very high end of the skills market. There is no link between unfettered migration and increased native unemployment, nor is there any link between migration and increased cost to public services, in fact migration helps pay for public services.

You're either trolling or being wilfully ignorant.

This is the sad thing of this whole debate anti immigration nonsense is taking over the whole out campaign and it is something I suspect they are very worried about as if it dominates it will become the in campaigns biggest weapon

 

[Monkfish]

People in Britain seem to believe that;

Right Wing = evil, murder, death, torture, poo poo.
Left Wing = peace, progressiveness and children with gum drop smiles.

Modern society, you have to laugh at it sometimes.

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

?

 

[Chippy_boy]

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

?

I wish we heard that more, because it is broadly true.

 

[EalingBlue2]

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.

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.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I wish we heard that more, because it is broadly true.

Very broadly true especially with Bush and Obama.

What normally happens is both fail after time and there is very little in Britins post war history to suggest otherwise - though unemployment was consistently lower under labour governments factually - though as can be pointed out that doesn't adjust for loss making industry and state funded jobs.

 

[EalingBlue2]

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

?

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