EU referendum

[hypochondriac]

There has been a lot of talk about Turkey joint the EU for many years. There has been lots of positive noises but in practice there's no chance of it happening.

 

Pure speculation on your part and no evidence to back up what you say.

[Whitey Grandad]

Pure speculation on your part and no evidence to back up what you say.

 

Only decades of following the political debate, but yeah, whatever.

[buctootim]

Pure speculation on your part and no evidence to back up what you say.

 

Lots to back up what Whitey says, very little to back up your position. Turkey applied to join the EU in 1987 and they're still waiting. Their chances of joining are close to zero.

[Whitey Grandad]

Lots to back up what Whitey says, very little to back up your position. Turkey applied to join the EU in 1987 and they're still waiting. Their chances of joining are close to zero.

 

It would need unanimous approval of all the current member states plus a total change of Turkeys human rights record and a host of other wholesale changes in their society but politically we need to keep Turkey as a friendly buffer between Christian Europe and all that stuff going on in the Middle East so we need to keep dangling the carrot whilst making sure that they never get to much of a grip on it with their teeth.

[buctootim]

It would need unanimous approval of all the current member states plus a total change of Turkeys human rights record and a host of other wholesale changes in their society but politically we need to keep Turkey as a friendly buffer between Christian Europe and all that stuff going on in the Middle East so we need to keep dangling the carrot whilst making sure that they never get to much of a grip on it with their teeth.

 

Exactly

[Lord Duckhunter]

Had somebody said Bulgarians & Poles would have free movement in a future EEC during the last vote , they'd be accused of talking nonsense . It's uncertain as to whether the Turks will join , funny because the Remainians don't like uncertainty . Dave has said his vote is for a lifetime , who can tell what will happen in the next 30, 40 , 50 years .

Edited 25 February, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[buctootim]

Dave has said his vote is for a lifetime , who can tell what will happen in the next 30, 40 , 50 years .

 

Dave wont be PM in four years time let alone a lifetime. In any event if it suited him electorally he'd change his mind about another referendum tomorrow. Like Scottish independence its settled for 10 years maybe.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Dave wont be PM in four years time let alone a lifetime. In any event if it suited him electorally he'd change his mind about another referendum tomorrow. Like Scottish independence its settled for 10 years maybe.

 

Complete nonsense . As we've seen previously , once the EU extremists get a Remain vote ,that's it , regardless of how the EU changes . You only get another vote if you vote the wrong way .

[hypochondriac]

Lots to back up what Whitey says, very little to back up your position. Turkey applied to join the EU in 1987 and they're still waiting. Their chances of joining are close to zero.

 

How is that evidence to say that they will never be admitted? Could easily be admitted in a decade or two.

[buctootim]

once the EU extremists get a Remain vote ,that's it , regardless of how the EU changes . You only get another vote if you vote the wrong way .

 

I love logic gaps. Go on then, explain. Is Dave an EU extremist? after all he's leading the In campaign but inconveniently also called the referendum.

[hypochondriac]

I love logic gaps. Go on then, explain. Is Dave an EU extremist? after all he's leading the In campaign but inconveniently also called the referendum.

 

The whole referendum was a calculated political risk by Dave to shut up the eurosceptics in his party. The likelihood is that despite many doubts, the majority will ultimately be scared into voting to remain and go with what they know and that will be justification for the eu to push onwards with their project and never have to put that sort of thing to the British people again.

[buctootim]

The whole referendum was a calculated political risk by Dave to shut up the eurosceptics in his party. The likelihood is that despite many doubts, the majority will ultimately be scared into voting to remain and go with what they know and that will be justification for the eu to push onwards with their project and never have to put that sort of thing to the British people again.

 

Another logic gap. Has the Scottish referendum put to bed the question of independence, or were the SNP elected with an increased majority? The eurosceptics wont go away, especially if the result is close, just like the nationalists.

[derry]

I posted this earlier. It's only the C class, but all worldwide RHD C class are built in SA. Have been since before the turn of the century. Same goes for 3series BMWs and now I think VW polos.

 

All Mercedes 4 x 4s are made in the US as part of the trade deal.

[hypochondriac]

Another logic gap. Has the Scottish referendum put to bed the question of independence, or were the SNP elected with an increased majority? The eurosceptics wont go away, especially if the result is close, just like the nationalists.

 

They won't go away but as far as the eu are concerned they will

[buctootim]

They won't go away but as far as the eu are concerned they will

 

The EU have no say on whether a UK referendum is called or not.

[hypochondriac]

The EU have no say on whether a UK referendum is called or not.

 

If we vote to stay there won't be another referendum in the foreseeable future. It took over thirty years to have this one despite there being a desire to have one for years and look how the eu has changed over that time.

Edited 25 February, 2016 by hypochondriac

[Lord Duckhunter]

I love logic gaps. Go on then, explain. Is Dave an EU extremist? after all he's leading the In campaign but inconveniently also called the referendum.

 

Anybody who wants countries like Poland , Bulgaria & Cyprus to decide who receives our benefits , who comes into our country and what we can charge VAT on , is an extremist imo .

[Wes Tender]

You could just as easily argue that it's like spending every holiday in a five-star hotel with wonderful food and weather and magnificent landscaped gardens only to go marching out with you possessions tied up in a knotted handkerchief only to end up in an unheated wooden shed in a car par next to Tescos.

 

Neither analogy has any bearing on Britain and the question as whether we remain in the EU.

 

My analogy was in response to Timmy's analogy:-

 

Its like ditching your wife / girlfriend / job / house for a new one promised to you by Michael Gove that he says will be better. Obviously Gove himself hasn't seen the new wife / girlfriend / job / house yet either - but he's sure its going to be great. Convinced?

 

Your analogy is really quite illogical, as who in their right minds would leave your imaginary hotel unless there was something potentially better available? Your analogy might have some point if there were grouses that one had about the hotel's shortcomings, that it had been over run with poor quality guests who didn't know how to behave properly, and the facilities were often unavailable due to the sheer number of people wanting to use them. Furthermore, one couldn't get seating near the pool because the Germans had reserved it by placing towels on it, and people who had paid far less than you got the same standard of accommodation.

 

But really, these analogies are pointless, as the purpose of them is only to illustrate what any sensible person realises; that there is no definitive outcome to our leaving that can be prophesied with any real accuracy. Each side is going to use either a carrot approach (leave) or a stick approach (stay) to entice opinion towards their position. As far as I'm concerned, the fear factor case that we would lose a huge amount of trade is not convincing, especially as a lot of that trade is done with the most powerful EU states, whose biggest corporations having the greatest influence over their governments would be the losers. On the other hand, far too much has been made of the trade aspects, whereas many of the leave proponents are influenced by their concerns over immigration, loss of sovereignty and the subjugation of our legal system to that of Europe.

[buctootim]

If we vote to stay there won't be another referendum in the foreseeable future. It took over thirty years to have this one despite there being a desire to have one for years and look how the eu has changed over that time.

 

There hasn't been a referendum prior to this one because there has never been a need for one. For the vast majority of the time people were happy to stay in. For the two periods when leave seemed popular it was agreed to hold a referendum. The Outies problem isnt that you are being stitched up or that you will never get another referendum - its that the majority of the British people dont agree with you.

 

 

 

Edited 25 February, 2016 by buctootim

[moonraker]

If we vote to stay there won't be another referendum in the foreseeable future. It took over thirty years to have this one despite there being a desire to have one for years and look how the eu has changed over that time.

 

So if we vote to stay in what change(s) in the current arrangements do you belive should trigger a referendum?

[derry]

With due respect to both camps nobody knows how the referendum will end up. Only a small percentage of the population has been sampled in a unique referendum. Whilst everybody might have an opinion nobody can be sure which way it will go because of the unique factors, For example, Fishing communities-out, Farmers in etc. Dislike of the EU/ like EU, worried about immigration/not worried, work for companies connected to EU conversely no connection but hamstrung by EU regulations etc etc

 

There will also be a percentage of the vote that is completely hacked off and will vote out to give the arrogant career politicians of all parties a bloody nose. I don't like the EU, I despise the politicians and I'm voting out especially as I detest the fear campaign and feel we can do well out of the EU.

[buctootim]

With due respect to both camps nobody knows how the referendum will end up. Only a small percentage of the population has been sampled in a unique referendum......I detest the fear campaign and feel we can do well out of the EU.

 

I agree with both of those.

 

Expressing an opinion on a landline Monday to Friday is not the same as turning up to vote. Similarly generating fear to get people to vote the 'right' way is wrong.

 

Of those 36 FTSE 100 bosses who signed the 'stay' letter very few were manufacturers who genuinely could be affected by leaving the EU. The large majority were consumer businesses who will operate wherever they can sell. Vodafone and ASDA wont be leaving the UK because we aren't in the EU. Similarly Britain's security wont be affected. Its pity much our media is so superficial and juvenile that much of the public arent so much informed but moulded.

[sandwichsaint]

What percentage turn-out are we expecting? It's obviously early days in terms of the referendum just having been called this week (though some would say it's been a bit of a slow-burner for the last 30 years).

 

Outside the big media/politico bubble, and beyond those obviously interested and committed (such as those posting here), has this really taken off with the ordinary Joe in the street? Is it likely to?

 

If we vote to leave a part of me would think we've lost a lot by leaving, if we vote to stay a part of me will think we should have left, I really am very ambivalent about the whole thing and can live with either outcome.

 

My totally made up polling figures would be:

25% strongly against and can give reasons for that,

25% strongly for and can give reasons for that,

25% plague on all their houses, they're interested but have totally given up on 'politicians' (of whatever hue) being the answer to just about any problem,

25% couldn't give a rat's backside, they're not interested, full stop.

 

I reckon on that basis it's all to play for

[Wes Tender]

There hasn't been a referendum prior to this one because there has never been a need for one.

 

There has been a need for a referendum for many years, regardless of some opinion polls' outcomes, which have been proven to be of questionable value and able to be manipulated depending on how the question is phrased. If there was no need for a referendum, how has it been that one has been promised in election manifestos some time before this last election?

 

The time for a referendum was when with successive treaties, the whole basis of what was our membership of the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community, changed from the so-called "Common Market", a trading association, into a progression towards a Federal European EU via the subsequent Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon.

 

The Eurosceptics have felt aggrieved for years that these substantial changes were steam-rolled through willy-nilly and it has largely been down to the rise of UKIP that sufficient pressure has been brought to bear upon the Conservative Party to promise a referendum should they win the election.

 

So regardless of whether some would argue that the electorate had not clamoured enough for a referendum previously, there is a much stronger case to be made that morally and democratically there needed to be a referendum for them to agree to the fundamental changes that were imposed on us by Europe.

[sandwichsaint]

There has been a need for a referendum for many years, regardless of some opinion polls' outcomes, which have been proven to be of questionable value and able to be manipulated depending on how the question is phrased. If there was no need for a referendum, how has it been that one has been promised in election manifestos some time before this last election?

 

The time for a referendum was when with successive treaties, the whole basis of what was our membership of the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community, changed from the so-called "Common Market", a trading association, into a progression towards a Federal European EU via the subsequent Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon.

 

The Eurosceptics have felt aggrieved for years that these substantial changes were steam-rolled through willy-nilly and it has largely been down to the rise of UKIP that sufficient pressure has been brought to bear upon the Conservative Party to promise a referendum should they win the election.

 

So regardless of whether some would argue that the electorate had not clamoured enough for a referendum previously, there is a much stronger case to be made that morally and democratically there needed to be a referendum for them to agree to the fundamental changes that were imposed on us by Europe.

 

Fair comment. It's definitely hard to argue that the referendum is not needed, though TBF I haven't really seen anybody pushing that line, unless I've missed something obvious?

[Pamplemousse]

Fair comment. It's definitely hard to argue that the referendum is not needed, though TBF I haven't really seen anybody pushing that line, unless I've missed something obvious?

 

Labour and the Lib Dems were of the opinion that no referendum was necessary, but some on the more extreme fringes of the left, in particular the Green Party, wanted a referendum.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There hasn't been a referendum prior to this one because there has never been a need for one.

 

Rubbish , there should have been one over Masstrict.

[Wes Tender]

Labour and the Lib Dems were of the opinion that no referendum was necessary, but some on the more extreme fringes of the left, in particular the Green Party, wanted a referendum.

 

This is a bit disingenuous, seeking to to label those who wanted a referendum as being on the extreme fringes of the left. I don't know how old you are, and therefore how far back your experience of the European project goes, but of course there had been deep divisions within the Conservative Party going back to the early Thatcher years. Those dissident voices were labelled as right-wingers and the so-called "wets" who were quite happy to give away our sovereignty were on the left of the party. Of course, there were then also quite sizeable sections of the Labour Party who were against further integration towards anything but a Common Market too. Maybe you didn't see the programme a couple of nights ago comparing the changes to the Political Parties' views on Europe at the time of the last referendum under Harold Wilson compared to now, when it was largely the Conservative Party for staying in and the Labour Party against.

[TwoPints]

The whole referendum was a calculated political risk by Dave to shut up the eurosceptics in his party. The likelihood is that despite many doubts, the majority will ultimately be scared into voting to remain and go with what they know and that will be justification for the eu to push onwards with their project and never have to put that sort of thing to the British people again.

The arrogance of the Leaver campaign. 'People will only vote to stay in because they're scared'. Maybe people have weighed up the pros and cons and made their mind up on the facts?

 

At the same time you claim people have been asking for a referendum for years but concede that the vote is likely to go to those that want to remain. So, have the majority wanted a referendum just to confirm they like the EU or is it that the more vocal (extreme?) Leavers claim that the majority have been demanding a referendum to support their case when there has been no such demand at all?

[hypochondriac]

The arrogance of the Leaver campaign. 'People will only vote to stay in because they're scared'. Maybe people have weighed up the pros and cons and made their mind up on the facts?

 

At the same time you claim people have been asking for a referendum for years but concede that the vote is likely to go to those that want to remain. So, have the majority wanted a referendum just to confirm they like the EU or is it that the more vocal (extreme?) Leavers claim that the majority have been demanding a referendum to support their case when there has been no such demand at all?

 

I'm not part of any leaver campaign, I only decided to vote to leave this week and before that I was undecided. A number of articles and opinion pieces have bemoaned the fact that the general public haven't got many facts to go on here and that people are already fed up with the scaremongering on both sides.

[TwoPints]

I only decided to vote to leave this week and before that I was undecided.

 

Honestly Hypo, of all the people that could have legitimately claimed they were undecided until this week, you're not one of them.

 

Here's a post from another forum from May 2014:

 

"As has been mentioned, it is positioned as an either or question when the real issue is far more complex. Most of us would vote to stay in the EU but as an institution it is broken and most of us want to fix it not abandon it.

 

 

 

The power of Brussels is disproportionate to how most of us would want it to be split between Brussels and Westminster. The instincts of the EU are profoundly undemocratic. Some of the most powerful people in the world are making decisions in our name and we have never even heard of them.

 

 

 

It is alarmingly corrupt; the fact that every year nobody will sign off the EU budget is brushed over annually. Most of think that somebody should be accountable.

 

 

 

Many of us think that the principle of one size fits all cannot apply to 27 different countries and that is a fundamental flaw.

 

 

 

Open door immigration. Most of us embrace the benefits of immigration but recognise that if you have significant variances in wealth across Europe you are at risk from sudden fluctuations in numbers entering the country. Economics say this will dilute wages and put pressure on local services and on communities. We were told 13000 Poles would arrive and a million did. It actually did wonders for our economy but lets have the right to manage the numbers.

 

 

 

Those in the Eurozone and those out of the Eurozone cannot be governed in the same context. We think this needs to be addressed or there will be major problems in the next few decades.

 

 

 

Lots of us want it to be an economic project not a political one and please do not tell us that we need to be in the EU or we will loose three million jobs. There is a surplus trade deficit with the EU so effectively they need us more than we need them. Yes of course we need each other.

 

 

 

So just because I will probably vote for UKIP don't call me a racist or a fruit cake. Without them I am disenfranchised. Lets fix Europe not walk out of it.'

 

That's not your post but your response to it was 'That's a fantastic post'. If that's not the view of someone that had made their mind up years ago, I don't know what is.

[Lord Duckhunter]

QT in my home town tonight . Car crash tv for remain . Abbott & Truss shocking , let's hope we see more of them in the coming months

[TwoPints]

QT in my home town tonight . Car crash tv for remain . Abbott & Truss shocking , let's hope we see more of them in the coming months

Abbott is always a car crash. Quite why she's still in politics is a complete mystery to me.

[Wes Tender]

QT in my home town tonight . Car crash tv for remain . Abbott & Truss shocking , let's hope we see more of them in the coming months

 

I just re-watched it to catch up on the part I'd missed and Truss claimed that the Government would produce figures from the Civil Service to show what the implications would be to our leaving in terms of lost trade. When asked how soon this information would be available, she could not give a definitive answer beyond soon. What is laughable, is that the Conservative Party promised a referendum at the General Election last May, went into negotiations with the EU over reforms and had not had the forethought to have this information ready to hand at the time of the announcement of the referendum date. The information will only be estimates anyway, but it still should have been available a long time ago. Despite this information not being available, that did not prevent Abbott and Truss bandying about figures about how much trade we do with Europe and implying that it would be severely diminished should we leave.

 

Truss also had too much of a tendency to state that everything she said about trade with Europe was fact, in particular that anybody who wished to trade with the EU had to accept the free movement of peoples as a condition of agreement to trade with them. It was mentioned that China had a trade agreement with Europe and the question begged to be asked whether that meant that 1.3 billion Chinese therefore had the right to migrate to the EU zone. If the free movement of peoples was only a condition of trade appertaining to those countries in Europe but not part of the EU, it should have been made clear. If the examples of that would be held up as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, then it would also be reasonable to argue why as the fifth biggest economy in the World, we couldn't negotiate a trade deal that still allowed us control of our borders. Julia Hartley-Brewer made some good points on trade, but could have done more to challenge this free movement of peoples question.

 

Abbott was indeed a joke and does the remain case no good at all. Labour seems to have adopted a very low profile on the referendum altogether up to now.

 

I do hope though that the Beeb will indeed be balanced in their choice of panellist and audience. Last night we had two proper politicians for the remain camp and three non-politicians generally in the leave camp, so presumably there will next be two politicians in the remain camp and three non-politicians in the stay camp.

[Bath Saint]

There hasn't been a referendum prior to this one because there has never been a need for one. For the vast majority of the time people were happy to stay in. For the two periods when leave seemed popular it was agreed to hold a referendum. The Outies problem isnt that you are being stitched up or that you will never get another referendum - its that the majority of the British people dont agree with you.

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting poll. I didn't know the country was quite so eurosceptic back in the early-80s. Also very interesting how things have gone since the referendum became a reality.

[Verbal]

Abbott was indeed a joke and does the remain case no good at all. Labour seems to have adopted a very low profile on the referendum altogether up to now.

 

I do hope though that the Beeb will indeed be balanced in their choice of panellist and audience. Last night we had two proper politicians for the remain camp and three non-politicians generally in the leave camp, so presumably there will next be two politicians in the remain camp and three non-politicians in the stay camp.

 

You have a weird idea of balance in this contradictory screed. Abbott is both "no good" for the yes/remain campaign (agreed, she's worse than useless), and yet because she's a "proper politician" she counts for more than a "non-politician". How the hell does that work?

 

Besides, the great problem for people like me (a very large number it seems, judging by the polls) who are likely to vote to stay but could be persuaded to vote no with some actual evidence that it would be workable, is that the remain camp (Abbott and Corbyn aside) have some pretty intelligent and articulate advocates. Notably Alan Johnson. And the no/leave campaign is dominated a bunch of cretins - Farage, IDS, Galloway, the BNP, etc.

 

So "balance", in terms of equal numbers, would drag in the cretins - the very people you should be hiding in a coal mine while the campaign is going on.

[Whitey Grandad]

I just re-watched it to catch up on the part I'd missed and Truss claimed that the Government would produce figures from the Civil Service to show what the implications would be to our leaving in terms of lost trade. When asked how soon this information would be available, she could not give a definitive answer beyond soon. What is laughable, is that the Conservative Party promised a referendum at the General Election last May, went into negotiations with the EU over reforms and had not had the forethought to have this information ready to hand at the time of the announcement of the referendum date. The information will only be estimates anyway, but it still should have been available a long time ago. Despite this information not being available, that did not prevent Abbott and Truss bandying about figures about how much trade we do with Europe and implying that it would be severely diminished should we leave.

 

Truss also had too much of a tendency to state that everything she said about trade with Europe was fact, in particular that anybody who wished to trade with the EU had to accept the free movement of peoples as a condition of agreement to trade with them. It was mentioned that China had a trade agreement with Europe and the question begged to be asked whether that meant that 1.3 billion Chinese therefore had the right to migrate to the EU zone. If the free movement of peoples was only a condition of trade appertaining to those countries in Europe but not part of the EU, it should have been made clear. If the examples of that would be held up as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, then it would also be reasonable to argue why as the fifth biggest economy in the World, we couldn't negotiate a trade deal that still allowed us control of our borders. Julia Hartley-Brewer made some good points on trade, but could have done more to challenge this free movement of peoples question.

 

Abbott was indeed a joke and does the remain case no good at all. Labour seems to have adopted a very low profile on the referendum altogether up to now.

 

I do hope though that the Beeb will indeed be balanced in their choice of panellist and audience. Last night we had two proper politicians for the remain camp and three non-politicians generally in the leave camp, so presumably there will next be two politicians in the remain camp and three non-politicians in the stay camp.

 

It's never happened yet so don't hold your breath

[moonraker]

This long but I think I have covered most things!

The Truth is Out

 

The more I read on the referendum the more I realise the absurdity of it. I openly admit that in principal I am in favour of the EU, it is not perfect and needs real reform but to me the alternative is regressive. The out campaign want a return of sovereignty, control of our borders, an end to needless at times silly laws, to protect our culture, avoid closer political union, save money, and to be true to our history. All on the face of it reasonable and desirable. Yet dig deeper and examine the vision the out campaign is promoting it is then obvious that withdrawal from the EU will never deliver their vision.

Sovereignty

If sovereignty means having supreme power or authority then this is not unachievable by simply leaving the EU. Few, if any, modern nation states can claim to have sovereignty when judged against this definition. Those that come close are either super powers or despotic regimes, that few if any British people would wish for, e.g. North Korea.

 

The UK is signatory to a over 14,000 international agreements, , some EU specific but many not. These impose duties and laws on us, we live in a global world the concept of absolute sovereignty is a myth. A few examples of non EU agreements are:

• NATO - Defence

• SOLAS - Maritime

• Security Control in the Field of Nuclear Energy – Energy and Security

• Protection of the Environment Through Criminal Law – The Environment

• International Labour Convention – Human Rights

• Montreal Convention - Environment

• Convention on International Civil Aviation – Aviation

• International Transport of Goods – Transport

• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation – Education

• Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals – Animal Welfare and Conservation

I have not seen any arguments that we should withdraw from any other binding agreements. Whilst we may have a greater degree of autonomy in what we do and do not sign up to, commercial, ethical and security needs demand that we are collaborative and co-operative.

Control of our Borders

The UK has a single short, 310 miles, land border with one other nation state. For 30 years the biggest terrorist threat we have ever faced emanated from across this border and yet this border has never been controlled in the way the out campaign are now advocating. Prior to the security threat their was mass immigration across the self same border, at the time many UK citizens resented these immigrants but the controls that are now being advocated were never proposed.

The migration of people is as old as the human race and whilst security, economic and social issues now mean we have to apply some control this has to be practicable and not restrict the conduct of legitimate, migration, travel and business.

As an island we are capable of providing the border controls required to address transient problems and risks, being politically isolated from Europe will not make us any safer or more impregnable.

End Needless and at Times Silly Laws

Leaving the EU is hardly likely to put an end to this. The UK and constituent parts has long history of strange and silly laws, indeed it is part of our culture. How about these amusing ordinances:

It is an offence to beat or shake any carpet rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District, although you are allowed to shake a doormat before 8 am.

It is illegal to eat Mute Swan unless you’re the Queen of Great Britain.

It is an offense to be intoxicated and in charge of a cow in Scotland.

Under the terms of the Protection of Wrecks Order 2003: A person shall not enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.

It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armor;

Whilst some of these may have made sense when they were enacted, some are recent, the fact that they remain is worrying. So not being in the EU will not stop unnecessary law making.

Protect Our Culture

Culture is a concept that by its very nature is dynamic and ever changing. Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Taking each of these in turn how has the EU changed our culture.

We still speak English, in fact more Europeans speak English than any other Language, no impact there. Very different to the UK Governments efforts to destroy the Welsh language in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Europe is predominantly Christian, the UK is predominantly Christian, no change there then.

We have certainly changed our diet, however the biggest influences are from cultures out side of the EU, so we cant pin our far more colourful and tasty menus on them.

Social habits, music and arts, this covers a wide range of activities and customs. We still celebrate the torture, mutilation and execution of a 16th century Religious Terrorist, Morris Dancing is still legal and actively pursued, excessive drinking and rowdiness persist.

EU directive juggernaut are has not stopped us driving on the left, having road signs in miles, beer served in pints, and paid for in GB Pounds, even cheese rolling is still allowed.

Of course none of this matters because our culture is not formed by EU, we choose our music, art and theatre, we are adventurous in our cuisine and we initiate and terminate traditions, there is nothing wrong with British Culture it is alive and well and evolving nicely.

Closer Political Union

The real issue for me, there are Eurocrats and politicians who have a vision of a European Super state, nothing new there ask Julius Caesar. The current EU is far more politically connected than the original European Coal and Steel Community, and its various successors. The out campaign disparages the former Eastern Bloc countries citizens rights to free movement while failing to acknowledge that their recently won freedom from an oppressive overlord will not be given up to Brussels lightly. The idea that a European Super state could be foisted on us through the back door is just implausible.

Money

The UK net contribution to the EU budget is less than 0.5 per cent of GDP, £18.4m per day, sounds a lot! The CBI estimates the EU adds a £192m a day to our GDP so net gain of £173m. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, all pay more than we do and are arguable the most successful and advanced EU members.

Through its global clout the EU is a springboard for trade with the rest of the world: it accounted for 23% of the global economy in 2012. 30 trade deals have been negotiated by the EU, including the Single Market itself, British firms have full access to a $24 trillion market the largest single market in the world. The recent deal with Canada and on-going discussions with Japan and the US could double this to $47 trillion, the UK would struggle to achieve the same quality of trade deals independently.

Leaving the EU will mean that the UK will have to fill the EU funding gap created by withdrawal or significantly reduce investment particularly in some of the most deprived areas of the UK. To put it another way all investment decisions will be taken in Westminster where party politics will have a far greater influence than the current system which while not perfect cannot be said to take into account marginal seats. The net contribution we make, call it our membership fee, will still be payable but as a non-voting member. It was the founding fathers of the USA who said no taxation without representation, yet here we are with the out camp advocating exactly that.

Bad History

 

The ridiculous Brexit History of the UK needs correction. The UK came into existence through the Act of Union 1707, as a Sovereign Nation we are a little over 300 years old. The first King of All England, Edgar was crowned in Bath in 973. England had a succession of Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings for the next 80 years before the Norseman William the Bastard invaded and gave us continental rule for the next 400 years. These Norse invaders were replaced by the Welshman Henry Tudor, his line lasted until a Scot was made king in 1603. The Scottish kings were not very good and in 1653 an Englishman finally led the country. He banned music, Christmas, mince pies basically anything that was fun or frivolous. On the death of the Lord Protector the nation came to its senses and invited a Frence/Scot to take the throne. He was succeeded by his brother the Roman Catholic James II this did not turn out well and the people of England asked a Dutchman called Billy to kick James out and Rule in his place. We continued with the foreign theme of rulers with Germans filling the gap left by Queen Ann’s failure to produce an Heir. The people of the UK were content with these Foreigners being in charge provided they did not ban anything that was fun or frivolous and left them alone to go to new lands and exploit to the full whatever and whoever they found there. Then when we get a monarch who could be passed of as English she marries a German. He may not have ruled but he certainly had an impact on the British way of life.

 

Our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not Great Britain, this is reference to largest island in the British Isles archipelago. It is therefore not necessary to put the Great back into Britain, it is physical truth.

Conclusion

 

So having our laws, customs and culture dictated or influenced by foreigners is nothing new it is who we are, it has always been so. It has served us well and created one of the most attractive, tolerant and diverse nation on earth. So please BREXIT stop playing the false sovereignty, borders, culture, financial and history cards, they are more Greek mythology than reality. The referendum is about our future not the past, that cannot be changed, by leaving the EU a successful future is less certain.

[Whitey Grandad]

A thought occurred to me this morning as I threw my copy of The Daily Mail in the bin. What is the likelihood that all those (Eastern) Europeans who were thinking of coming here but who could not be bothered until now rushing over before the referendum because they fear that they might not be able to later?

[Sour Mash]

This long but I think I have covered most things!

The Truth is Out

 

The more I read on the referendum the more I realise the absurdity of it. I openly admit that in principal I am in favour of the EU, it is not perfect and needs real reform but to me the alternative is regressive. The out campaign want a return of sovereignty, control of our borders, an end to needless at times silly laws, to protect our culture, avoid closer political union, save money, and to be true to our history. All on the face of it reasonable and desirable. Yet dig deeper and examine the vision the out campaign is promoting it is then obvious that withdrawal from the EU will never deliver their vision.

Sovereignty

If sovereignty means having supreme power or authority then this is not unachievable by simply leaving the EU. Few, if any, modern nation states can claim to have sovereignty when judged against this definition. Those that come close are either super powers or despotic regimes, that few if any British people would wish for, e.g. North Korea.

The UK is signatory to a over 14,000 international agreements, , some EU specific but many not. These impose duties and laws on us, we live in a global world the concept of absolute sovereignty is a myth. A few examples of non EU agreements are:

• NATO - Defence

• SOLAS - Maritime

 

• Convention on International Civil Aviation – Aviation

• International Transport of Goods – Transport

• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation – Education

• Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals – Animal Welfare and Conservation

I have not seen any arguments that we should withdraw from any other binding agreements. Whilst we may have a greater degree of autonomy in what we do and do not sign up to, commercial, ethical and security needs demand that we are collaborative and co-operative.

Control of our Borders

The UK has a single short, 310 miles, land border with one other nation state. For 30 years the biggest terrorist threat we have ever faced emanated from across this border and yet this border has never been controlled in the way the out campaign are now advocating. Prior to the security threat their was mass immigration across the self same border, at the time many UK citizens resented these immigrants but the controls that are now being advocated were never proposed.

The migration of people is as old as the human race and whilst security, economic and social issues now mean we have to apply some control this has to be practicable and not restrict the conduct of legitimate, migration, travel and business.

As an island we are capable of providing the border controls required to address transient problems and risks, being politically isolated from Europe will not make us any safer or more impregnable.

End Needless and at Times Silly Laws

Leaving the EU is hardly likely to put an end to this. The UK and constituent parts has long history of strange and silly laws, indeed it is part of our culture. How about these amusing ordinances:

It is an offence to beat or shake any carpet rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District, although you are allowed to shake a doormat before 8 am.

It is illegal to eat Mute Swan unless you’re the Queen of Great Britain.

It is an offense to be intoxicated and in charge of a cow in Scotland.

Under the terms of the Protection of Wrecks Order 2003: A person shall not enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.

It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armor;

Whilst some of these may have made sense when they were enacted, some are recent, the fact that they remain is worrying. So not being in the EU will not stop unnecessary law making.

Protect Our Culture

Culture is a concept that by its very nature is dynamic and ever changing. Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Taking each of these in turn how has the EU changed our culture.

We still speak English, in fact more Europeans speak English than any other Language, no impact there. Very different to the UK Governments efforts to destroy the Welsh language in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Europe is predominantly Christian, the UK is predominantly Christian, no change there then.

We have certainly changed our diet, however the biggest influences are from cultures out side of the EU, so we cant pin our far more colourful and tasty menus on them.

Social habits, music and arts, this covers a wide range of activities and customs. We still celebrate the torture, mutilation and execution of a 16th century Religious Terrorist, Morris Dancing is still legal and actively pursued, excessive drinking and rowdiness persist.

EU directive juggernaut are has not stopped us driving on the left, having road signs in miles, beer served in pints, and paid for in GB Pounds, even cheese rolling is still allowed.

Of course none of this matters because our culture is not formed by EU, we choose our music, art and theatre, we are adventurous in our cuisine and we initiate and terminate traditions, there is nothing wrong with British Culture it is alive and well and evolving nicely.

Closer Political Union

The real issue for me, there are Eurocrats and politicians who have a vision of a European Super state, nothing new there ask Julius Caesar. The current EU is far more politically connected than the original European Coal and Steel Community, and its various successors. The out campaign disparages the former Eastern Bloc countries citizens rights to free movement while failing to acknowledge that their recently won freedom from an oppressive overlord will not be given up to Brussels lightly. The idea that a European Super state could be foisted on us through the back door is just implausible.

Money

The UK net contribution to the EU budget is less than 0.5 per cent of GDP, £18.4m per day, sounds a lot! The CBI estimates the EU adds a £192m a day to our GDP so net gain of £173m. Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, all pay more than we do and are arguable the most successful and advanced EU members.

Through its global clout the EU is a springboard for trade with the rest of the world: it accounted for 23% of the global economy in 2012. 30 trade deals have been negotiated by the EU, including the Single Market itself, British firms have full access to a $24 trillion market the largest single market in the world. The recent deal with Canada and on-going discussions with Japan and the US could double this to $47 trillion, the UK would struggle to achieve the same quality of trade deals independently.

Leaving the EU will mean that the UK will have to fill the EU funding gap created by withdrawal or significantly reduce investment particularly in some of the most deprived areas of the UK. To put it another way all investment decisions will be taken in Westminster where party politics will have a far greater influence than the current system which while not perfect cannot be said to take into account marginal seats. The net contribution we make, call it our membership fee, will still be payable but as a non-voting member. It was the founding fathers of the USA who said no taxation without representation, yet here we are with the out camp advocating exactly that.

Bad History

 

The ridiculous Brexit History of the UK needs correction. The UK came into existence through the Act of Union 1707, as a Sovereign Nation we are a little over 300 years old. The first King of All England, Edgar was crowned in Bath in 973. England had a succession of Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings for the next 80 years before the Norseman William the Bastard invaded and gave us continental rule for the next 400 years. These Norse invaders were replaced by the Welshman Henry Tudor, his line lasted until a Scot was made king in 1603. The Scottish kings were not very good and in 1653 an Englishman finally led the country. He banned music, Christmas, mince pies basically anything that was fun or frivolous. On the death of the Lord Protector the nation came to its senses and invited a Frence/Scot to take the throne. He was succeeded by his brother the Roman Catholic James II this did not turn out well and the people of England asked a Dutchman called Billy to kick James out and Rule in his place. We continued with the foreign theme of rulers with Germans filling the gap left by Queen Ann’s failure to produce an Heir. The people of the UK were content with these Foreigners being in charge provided they did not ban anything that was fun or frivolous and left them alone to go to new lands and exploit to the full whatever and whoever they found there. Then when we get a monarch who could be passed of as English she marries a German. He may not have ruled but he certainly had an impact on the British way of life.

 

Our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not Great Britain, this is reference to largest island in the British Isles archipelago. It is therefore not necessary to put the Great back into Britain, it is physical truth.

Conclusion

 

So having our laws, customs and culture dictated or influenced by foreigners is nothing new it is who we are, it has always been so. It has served us well and created one of the most attractive, tolerant and diverse nation on earth. So please BREXIT stop playing the false sovereignty, borders, culture, financial and history cards, they are more Greek mythology than reality. The referendum is about our future not the past, that cannot be changed, by leaving the EU a successful future is less certain.

I'm not sure if this is serious or not?

[Batman]

Seems Hungary are just as happy with Cameron's "deal" as Dave is

 

 

http://order-order.com/2016/02/25/hungarian-pm-boasts-well-still-get-benefits-without-paying-in/

[buctootim]

I threw my copy of The Daily Mail in the bin.

 

Finally!! Are you switching papers for good?

[Whitey Grandad]

Finally!! Are you switching papers for good?

 

I read several. I only look at the pictures. I like doing the puzzles in The Times.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Besides, the great problem for people like me (a very large number it seems, judging by the polls) who are likely to vote to stay but could be persuaded to vote no with some actual evidence that it would be workable, is that the remain camp (Abbott and Corbyn aside) have some pretty intelligent and articulate advocates. Notably Alan Johnson. And the no/leave campaign is dominated a bunch of cretins - Farage, IDS, Galloway, the BNP, etc.

 

So "balance", in terms of equal numbers, would drag in the cretins - the very people you should be hiding in a coal mine while the campaign is going on.

 

You're talking nonsense man . You're excluding Abbott & Corbyn, yet picking and choosing your Leave " cretins" . The past week I've heard credible decent arguments for leaving from Digby-Jones ,Dr David Owen , Gisela Stuart , Frank Field, Giles the trendy vicar & Michael Howard . Farage & Galloway will play their part in bringing in certain groups ( and their wives in Galloway's case) , but if you think people wanting to leave are a bunch of golf club bores or loons ,you're going to get a big shock come the glorious day.

[buctootim]

I read several. I only look at the pictures. I like doing the puzzles in The Times.

 

The Times is the best of the bunch imo - right of centre but fairly straight with the news and usually quotes sources so you can check /read more if you want to.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Times is the best of the bunch imo - right of centre but fairly straight with the news and usually quotes so you can check /read more if you want to.

 

You're joking right. They're a bunch of establishment pinkos . People like Parris and Aaronovitch are soaking wet centralists .

Edited 26 February, 2016 by Lord Duckhunter

[Verbal]

You're talking nonsense man . You're excluding Abbott & Corbyn, yet picking and choosing your Leave " cretins" . The past week I've heard credible decent arguments for leaving from Digby-Jones ,Dr David Owen , Gisela Stuart , Frank Field, Giles the trendy vicar & Michael Howard . Farage & Galloway will play their part in bringing in certain groups ( and their wives in Galloway's case) , but if you think people wanting to leave are a bunch of golf club bores or loons ,you're going to get a big shock come the glorious day.

 

Oh, and David Icke. You're on the same wavelength as David Icke. Time to stick your head in a bucket of ice?

 

I'm excluding Abbott and Costello because they're beyond useless. They won't make a damned bit of difference to the campaign either way.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Oh, and David Icke. You're on the same wavelength as David Icke. Time to stick your head in a bucket of ice?

 

I'm excluding Abbott and Costello because they're beyond useless. They won't make a damned bit of difference to the campaign either way.

 

Great post

[buctootim]

The out campaign has been overwhelmingly negative so far. What they need to do is set out a vision of how a Britain outside the EU will be. There should be heavyweight reports from KPMG / Deloitte / McKinseys showing realistic options for Britain. They need some economic analysis showing how similar 'independent' countries operate. Instead we've got the Outies telling anybody who isnt convinced by the case so far they're stupid, or scared. If they keep that up they are going to lose and lose very badly.

[hutch]

The out campaign has been overwhelmingly negative so far. What they need to do is set out a vision of how a Britain outside the EU will be. There should be heavyweight reports from KPMG / Deloitte / McKinseys showing realistic options for Britain. They need some economic analysis showing how similar 'independent' countries operate. Instead we've got the Outies telling anybody who isnt convinced by the case so far they're stupid, or scared. If they keep that up they are going to lose and lose very badly.

Yeah. Coz what we really need to help us decide is dodgy statistics. And the more the better.