EU referendum

[Batman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/it-is-an-eu-army-that-could-bring-about-war/

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I read that in a letter published in 'The Times' today some 13 former US Scretaries of State and National Security Advisers have written to express their collective view that the UK's influence in the world would be much reduced were we to leave the EU.

 

It is worth noting I think not only the obvious seniority of these people, but fact that they come from BOTH sides of the political debate in the US.

[Batman]

I read that in a letter published in 'The Times' today some 13 former US Scretaries of State and National Security Advisers have written to express their collective view that the UK's influence in the world would be much reduced were we to leave the EU.

 

It is worth noting I think not only the obvious seniority of these people, but fact that they come from BOTH sides of the political debate in the US.

 

There is a game here.

The EU is a huge ecomonic figure put a peanut with regards to common military capability.

 

The USA are looking 'east' towards china as opposed to 'west' towards Europe. They NEED a strong European Defence thing going on so they do not have to come and bail this continent out (again). Having an 'EU armed force' is a huge step to ensure we dont need their help

 

an inception of an EU Army is a step towards combined defence and a step away from NATO. More so with the UK involved, the US would still retain huge influence in the worlds 'next' global military power.

 

trouble is, we would have to eventually concede more and more control (and we will be pushed into doing so - who provides the missiles for our nuclear weapons?)

 

If that is what you want then cool beans. Not for me.

 

 

this is a another (slow) step towards the country known as the EU. pretty weird you cannot see that/accept that

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

A strong Europe that speaks with a single voice and one that can meaningfully contribute towards its own defence is a good thing on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is it not? Furthermore, the notion that a distinguished group of US National Security Advisors etc would be interested in somehow undermining NATO strikes me as odd to put it mildly.

[Whitey Grandad]

There is a game here.

The EU is a huge ecomonic figure put a peanut with regards to common military capability.

 

The USA are looking 'east' towards china as opposed to 'west' towards Europe. They NEED a strong European Defence thing going on so they do not have to come and bail this continent out (again). Having an 'EU armed force' is a huge step to ensure we dont need their help

 

an inception of an EU Army is a step towards combined defence and a step away from NATO. More so with the UK involved, the US would still retain huge influence in the worlds 'next' global military power.

 

trouble is, we would have to eventually concede more and more control (and we will be pushed into doing so - who provides the missiles for our nuclear weapons?)

 

If that is what you want then cool beans. Not for me.

 

 

this is a another (slow) step towards the country known as the EU. pretty weird you cannot see that/accept that

 

I'm comfortable with that.

[derry]

In 1944 a German Army journalist interviewed military personnel manning the Normandy defences. In 1954 he re interviewed survivors. This year his grandson published the verbatim questions and answers from both years in two books translated from German. At the end he made several comments on the content of the interviews. One of the questions asked was " who or what do you think you are defending?" Almost all responded they were defending "a United Europe".

 

It is small wonder we are racing down the road of a German dominated EU with a military commanded and run by the Germans. The concept of the United Europe under German control has been bit by bit moved forward with the connivance of cowardly politicians. As far as I am concerned it is time to bail out and stay in Nato militarily and let the Germans go their own way.

 

As for the US comments and third Party PM's comments, favours for the second worst and most devious PM we have had in my lifetime. The more this unwinds the more the word conspiracy comes to mind.

[Wes Tender]

It's all beginning to unravel nicely, as even the Brussels top hierarchy are beginning to realise the implications of a possible Brexit, which could be followed by clamours for stay/leave referenda in several other member states.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/660240/EU-referendum-Brexit-European-Parliament-president-Martin-Schulz-implosion-of-EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/10/devastating-mori-poll-shows-europes-peoples-share-british-rage-o/

 

As with us here, many of the electorates of other member states might accept that there are economic benefits of the single market, but have become antagonised by the EU policies on the freedom of movement of peoples, the loss of their own Parliaments' sovereignty and the supremacy of European Law over their own legal system. Many express genuine concerns that the headlong rush towards a United States of Europe will water down their proud national identities. I realise that they ought to see sense and listen to what Obama or former American politicians tell them is good for them, but there is a fast growing clamour for their voices to be heard in Brussels, and if they are ignored the result will be the rise of more extremist political parties.

 

In my opinion, the best outcome of a Brexit would be that there was indeed a domino effect of other states voting to leave, so that there could then be initiatives to revisit the original aims of the Treaty of Rome which planned a Europe wide trading block without the ensuing Federal State ambitions. It is plainly obvious that there would be no impetus towards serious reforms of the EU unless there are real fears in Brussels that the whole enterprise could collapse in its present form.

[derry]

Like all manufactured alliances it will eventually collapse. It's not a matter of if but when. The EU is unsustainable with everything geared to German finances. If we pull out either Germany will have to shovel in more handouts to the hangers on or they will pull out.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

In 1944 a German Army journalist interviewed military personnel manning the Normandy defences. In 1954 he re interviewed survivors. This year his grandson published the verbatim questions and answers from both years in two books translated from German. At the end he made several comments on the content of the interviews. One of the questions asked was " who or what do you think you are defending?" Almost all responded they were defending "a United Europe".

 

It is small wonder we are racing down the road of a German dominated EU with a military commanded and run by the Germans. The concept of the United Europe under German control has been bit by bit moved forward with the connivance of cowardly politicians. As far as I am concerned it is time to bail out and stay in Nato militarily and let the Germans go their own way.

 

As for the US comments and third Party PM's comments, favours for the second worst and most devious PM we have had in my lifetime. The more this unwinds the more the word conspiracy comes to mind.

 

Equating the noton of a 'EU Army' with some sinister German attempt to recreat the WWII Wehrmacht and blitzkrieg Poland again is high order paranoia. Whatismore, this is a real threat to my status as this forum's leading Godwin offender! I might also ask how we would possibly stop such a development if we left the EU?

 

Divorce yourself from the baggage of history - if you can - and think about the issue on its merits, then it probably does make a good deal of sense that in the light of Vladimir Putin's current behaviour the EU28 should coordinate their individual defence efforts better. It seems to me that 28 different European nations each attempting to fund their own little army, air force and (sometimes) a navy must be grossly inefficient.

For example, if perhaps Germany diverted resources away from their (quite large) navy and towards their army - and the UK did the reverse of that - then Europe might field a more capable set of armed forces overall. We should all do more methinks to help modernise the Polish army as this force is effectivly our front line in the east now. If it is still felt that Europe needs a nuclear deterrant then combining the current independent UK and Frence forces might save a vast amount of money for both nations. Indeed, a widespread policy of common EU military equipment and bulk purchasing would I believe greatly increase the effectiveness and decrease the cost of our joint European defence if that could be agreed.

Furthermore, we have here in Europe assumed for too long that the US will in effect provide for our defence - how many on here know that the US Army has virtually withdrawn from Europe now?

 

The real problems with the idea are establishing a effective command and control arrangement for this force that takes into account different national sensibilities and that doesn't needlessly duplicate what NATO already provides. Additionally, some EU nation states will still need to maintain what we might call a 'full spectrum' of independent military capabilities because they can foresee national requirements occurring that have nothing to do with the EU or NATO - our 1982 Falkland War comes to mind here. The many 'vested interests' of those who profit from our current military isolationism would also prove to be highly problematic to overcome one suspects.

 

However, all these points are of course entirely moot, from a UK perspective, as your government has firmly rejected the notion and (to the best of my knowledge) no mechanism exists in EU law that could possibly force us into taking part against our will.

Edited 10 May, 2016 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[aintforever]

Still, I think it would be a little naive to completely ignore the fact that it wasn't too long ago the Germans were trying to take over Europe and gas millions of people because of their religion.

[Batman]

wonder what has changed?

 

https://www.facebook.com/100003662834496/videos/815593328572754/

[Wes Tender]

wonder what has changed?

 

https://www.facebook.com/100003662834496/videos/815593328572754/

 

This has all changed since Dave went cap in hand to Brussels asking them for significant reforms to the EU and renegotiation of certain membership conditions that we demanded were changed. Metaphorically having received a bag of crisps, he thought that he could hoodwink the electorate by insisting that it was a fine dining experience we had gained.

[derry]

This has all changed since Dave went cap in hand to Brussels asking them for significant reforms to the EU and renegotiation of certain membership conditions that we demanded were changed. Metaphorically having received a bag of crisps, he thought that he could hoodwink the electorate by insisting that it was a fine dining experience we had gained.

 

It has come out today that Merkel was effectively given the power of veto on what was put forward. The Germans run the EU, it's no good trying to deny it and our cowardly politicians defer in everything to them. Nothing can be done in the EU without the German approval. This is not what those who gave their lives in WW2 were dying for despite the ridiculous claims of Obama etc. Time to vote to leave the German charade called the EU.

[Whitey Grandad]

It has come out today that Merkel was effectively given the power of veto on what was put forward. The Germans run the EU, it's no good trying to deny it and our cowardly politicians defer in everything to them. Nothing can be done in the EU without the German approval. This is not what those who gave their lives in WW2 were dying for despite the ridiculous claims of Obama etc. Time to vote to leave the German charade called the EU.

 

You've mentioned the war. I had hoped that we'd moved on since then.

[alpine_saint]

There is a game here.

The EU is a huge ecomonic figure put a peanut with regards to common military capability.

 

The USA are looking 'east' towards china as opposed to 'west' towards Europe. They NEED a strong European Defence thing going on so they do not have to come and bail this continent out (again). Having an 'EU armed force' is a huge step to ensure we dont need their help

 

an inception of an EU Army is a step towards combined defence and a step away from NATO. More so with the UK involved, the US would still retain huge influence in the worlds 'next' global military power.

 

trouble is, we would have to eventually concede more and more control (and we will be pushed into doing so - who provides the missiles for our nuclear weapons?)

 

If that is what you want then cool beans. Not for me.

 

 

this is a another (slow) step towards the country known as the EU. pretty weird you cannot see that/accept that

 

Fully agree with this. The US figures are only talking about what is best for US interests, not UK interests.

[alpine_saint]

You've mentioned the war. I had hoped that we'd moved on since then.

But Europe hasnt moved on. Whether we like it or not, Germany is the biggest most powerful country and will always end up overshadowing everything.

[derry]

The economic and political scaremongering will be ineffective in the long run because limiting immigration, proper border controls and regulations is the decisive issue. The ability of this country to govern itself without being dictated to by the EU. Last month a record £8.1 billion deficit with EU. We are exporting less and less to the EU and importing more and more. They won't want our trade if we leave.

[derry]

You've mentioned the war. I had hoped that we'd moved on since then.

 

Only because Obama etc brought it up plus the remain group trying to rewrite history regarding Churchill. Yesterday three ex bomber crew were very angry and said the EU isn't what they had risked their lives for to allow the Germans to now run this country through the EU.

[buctootim]

Only because Obama etc brought it up plus the remain group trying to rewrite history regarding Churchill. Yesterday three ex bomber crew were very angry and said the EU isn't what they had risked their lives for to allow the Germans to now run this country through the EU.

 

Thats a nil sum game. Im sure there are three bomber crews who risked their lives and want to remain in the EU. As Whitey says, pointless bringing it up.

[buctootim]

But Europe hasnt moved on. Whether we like it or not, Germany is the biggest most powerful country and will always end up overshadowing everything.

 

The German / French axis has had a disproportionate influence in Europe for decades - but thats definitely on the wane. The political landscape within the EU is shifting as France moves right and with the newer members becoming more assertive. Germany is the biggest country, but still only one of 28 members with 12% of MEPs.

[Wes Tender]

Another fine article from Daniel Hannan exploding the myths about the Single Market and how the Remainians have distorted the electorate's perception of what it is, to suit their campaign of fear.

 

http://capx.co/remain-campaign-is-misleading-voters-on-the-single-market/

 

Also a notable distortion of the facts from George Osborne to equal his other blatant propaganda, the distorted figures of the cost to each family of a Brexit. Now he claims that the Leave Campaign would be prepared to abandon the Single Market. He really is a piece of work, but telling such porkies is going to do some considerable harm to his future ambitions because his credibility, honesty and integrity will have taken a big knock when his duplicity is exposed, as it has been here.

 

As Hannan says, the sheer shrillness of the dire consequences of a Brexit predicted by Cameron and Osborne, show how desperate they are becoming. It is quite reminiscent of how they reacted to the closeness of the polls at the time of the Scottish Independence referendum.

 

They are like a wounded beast in a corner, lashing out in all directions.

[Whitey Grandad]

Another fine article from Daniel Hannan exploding the myths about the Single Market and how the Remainians have distorted the electorate's perception of what it is, to suit their campaign of fear.

 

http://capx.co/remain-campaign-is-misleading-voters-on-the-single-market/

 

Also a notable distortion of the facts from George Osborne to equal his other blatant propaganda, the distorted figures of the cost to each family of a Brexit. Now he claims that the Leave Campaign would be prepared to abandon the Single Market. He really is a piece of work, but telling such porkies is going to do some considerable harm to his future ambitions because his credibility, honesty and integrity will have taken a big knock when his duplicity is exposed, as it has been here.

 

As Hannan says, the sheer shrillness of the dire consequences of a Brexit predicted by Cameron and Osborne, show how desperate they are becoming. It is quite reminiscent of how they reacted to the closeness of the polls at the time of the Scottish Independence referendum.

 

They are like a wounded beast in a corner, lashing out in all directions.

 

From reading that it's clear that he doesn't actually understand the practicalities of working within a single market.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The economic and political scaremongering will be ineffective in the long run because limiting immigration, proper border controls and regulations is the decisive issue. The ability of this country to govern itself without being dictated to by the EU. Last month a record £8.1 billion deficit with EU. We are exporting less and less to the EU and importing more and more. They won't want our trade if we leave.

 

Nearly half of all UK exports still go to the EU Single Market area.

 

Nearly 7 out of 10 of our larger (i.e. over 250 employees) businesses favour that we remain in the EU.

[Wes Tender]

From reading that it's clear that he doesn't actually understand the practicalities of working within a single market.

 

I'm sure that you will be telling us where he has misunderstood what the single market actually is. But be careful that when you talk of the single market that you understand what the actual definition of it is, as he claims that it is a misnomer and that the name has been deliberately misrepresented by the likes of Cameron and Osborne in order to discredit the Brexit campaign.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm sure that you will be telling us where he has misunderstood what the single market actually is. But be careful that when you talk of the single market that you understand what the actual definition of it is, as he claims that it is a misnomer and that the name has been deliberately misrepresented by the likes of Cameron and Osborne in order to discredit the Brexit campaign.

 

It doesn't matter what it is called but The Single Market (capital letters) within the EU is what we are referring to here. Basically it implies a freedom to provides goods in services other than our own and as freely as they would be within our own. It is not just a matter of zero tariffs and common standards. Those of us that reeber what it used to be like before the Single Market will shudder at the thought of losing its benefits.

 

These references will explain it more fully than I:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/index_en.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_market

[Saint86]

It boils down to whether we want to give up our sovereignty because we feel like we cannot govern ourselves and a self sufficient democracy... Or to put it another way... given the shambles on the EU run continent, do we honestly think they can govern us better than we can ourselves? and are people really going to vote to that effect?!?!?!

 

Ignore the scaremongering, do you want a parliament that you directly elected having control over your lives. Or do you want the citizens of poland, germany, france, turkey (in a few years) etc electing people that pass laws governing your life... that tell us what products we can sell in our shops, whether we can dredge flood risk rivers, what road signs need to be changed...

 

That is the fundamental story for me.

 

If you look past this and at all the scaremongering that goes on then the misinformation and propaganda campaign of this government is a joke.

 

Security... For starters, the eu is not a defensive alliance, that is Nato!! Most of the eu do not even contribute the required amount of their GDP into defence anyway... on top of that, the immediate threat to the UK and its citizens (us, your kids, your parents etc etc) is terrorism... and being in a uk with open borders to Turkey and the fact that we will eventually get dragged into Shengen is frankly alarming! There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered migrants floating around europe as it is and this situation is only ever going to worsen.

 

Trade - we have a growing trade deficit... Europe is not a successful economic region in relative terms and as a trading alliance is actually very limited with regards to industry, resources etc etc. No need to limit ourselves to this. In addition, if we are such an unimportant economy that is unable to survive alone in the world... then why is the whole fecking western economy stalling over a concern that we might leave the EU...

 

TTIP. If you don't know what that is then look it up... Most alarming backdoor trade agreement in my lifetime.

 

god knows what else.

 

Long story short, if you believe that Britain is incapable of managing itself then vote to stay in. If you still have an ounce of national self respect vote to leave and build a stronger britain.

[Whitey Grandad]

It boils down to whether we want to give up our sovereignty because we feel like we cannot govern ourselves and a self sufficient democracy... Or to put it another way... given the shambles on the EU run continent, do we honestly think they can govern us better than we can ourselves? and are people really going to vote to that effect?!?!?!

 

Ignore the scaremongering, do you want a parliament that you directly elected having control over your lives. Or do you want the citizens of poland, germany, france, turkey (in a few years) etc electing people that pass laws governing your life... that tell us what products we can sell in our shops, whether we can dredge flood risk rivers, what road signs need to be changed...

 

That is the fundamental story for me.

 

If you look past this and at all the scaremongering that goes on then the misinformation and propaganda campaign of this government is a joke.

 

Security... For starters, the eu is not a defensive alliance, that is Nato!! Most of the eu do not even contribute the required amount of their GDP into defence anyway... on top of that, the immediate threat to the UK and its citizens (us, your kids, your parents etc etc) is terrorism... and being in a uk with open borders to Turkey and the fact that we will eventually get dragged into Shengen is frankly alarming! There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered migrants floating around europe as it is and this situation is only ever going to worsen.

 

Trade - we have a growing trade deficit... Europe is not a successful economic region in relative terms and as a trading alliance is actually very limited with regards to industry, resources etc etc. No need to limit ourselves to this. In addition, if we are such an unimportant economy that is unable to survive alone in the world... then why is the whole fecking western economy stalling over a concern that we might leave the EU...

 

TTIP. If you don't know what that is then look it up... Most alarming backdoor trade agreement in my lifetime.

 

god knows what else.

 

Long story short, if you believe that Britain is incapable of managing itself then vote to stay in. If you still have an ounce of national self respect vote to leave and build a stronger britain.

 

Such unbelievable arrogance.

[Wes Tender]

It doesn't matter what it is called but The Single Market (capital letters) within the EU is what we are referring to here. Basically it implies a freedom to provides goods in services other than our own and as freely as they would be within our own. It is not just a matter of zero tariffs and common standards. Those of us that reeber what it used to be like before the Single Market will shudder at the thought of losing its benefits.

 

These references will explain it more fully than I:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/index_en.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_market

 

I know what the concept of a "single market" is and well remember what it was like trading with other nations before the Single Market and indeed the Common Market.

 

The main point that Hannan raises, is this one:_

 

Britain, he said (Gove), would retain access to the single market, but it would not accept the supremacy of EU law. He was, for what it’s worth, stating the obvious. Britain would find itself in the same position as every other non-EU state in Europe – that is, part of a European free trade area by dint of an intergovernmental treaty. Andorra, Bosnia, the Faroes, Iceland, Jersey, Macedonia, Monaco, Montenegro, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey – all trade freely with the EU while making their own laws.

 

Reading the first of those links you provided and I take issue in even the first paragraph setting out the essence of the benefits of the European Single Market.

 

A functioning Single Market stimulates competition and trade, improves efficiency, raises quality, and helps cut prices.

 

The EU model must be malfunctioning, as it is very debatable as to whether it improves efficiency or cuts prices, or whether to a lesser degree it can be argued that it stimulates competition or raises quality. No doubt if there were significant reforms, these objectives could be achieved more readily. But the obvious examples of the wastages caused by the CAP, the throwing of dead fish into the sea because quotas had been exceeded, the extra costs and production burdens placed on businesses by the excessive bureaucracy imposed on them, are all examples of how the Single Market does not function to those ideals as it should.

 

This for me was the other telling point in the Hannan article:-

 

At present, only six per cent of our businesses export to EU markets; but 100 per cent of our businesses must apply 100 per cent of EU regulations.

 

Now, call me a cynic, but I suspect strongly that it is these mainly major multinational companies that comprise the six percent of our businesses that export to the EU markets and that by some strange coincidence, they might well be the business leaders who are against us leaving the EU. I would suggest that if we left the EU, the smaller businesses who are the backbone of the Nation, and those who do not trade with the EU, would then find that by freeing themselves from the EU regulations, that would stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, raise quality and help cut prices.

[moonraker]

It boils down to whether we want to give up our sovereignty because we feel like we cannot govern ourselves and a self sufficient democracy... Or to put it another way... given the shambles on the EU run continent, do we honestly think they can govern us better than we can ourselves? and are people really going to vote to that effect?!?!?!

 

Ignore the scaremongering, do you want a parliament that you directly elected having control over your lives. Or do you want the citizens of poland, germany, france, turkey (in a few years) etc electing people that pass laws governing your life... that tell us what products we can sell in our shops, whether we can dredge flood risk rivers, what road signs need to be changed...

 

That is the fundamental story for me.

 

If you look past this and at all the scaremongering that goes on then the misinformation and propaganda campaign of this government is a joke.

 

Security... For starters, the eu is not a defensive alliance, that is Nato!! Most of the eu do not even contribute the required amount of their GDP into defence anyway... on top of that, the immediate threat to the UK and its citizens (us, your kids, your parents etc etc) is terrorism... and being in a uk with open borders to Turkey and the fact that we will eventually get dragged into Shengen is frankly alarming! There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered migrants floating around europe as it is and this situation is only ever going to worsen.

 

Trade - we have a growing trade deficit... Europe is not a successful economic region in relative terms and as a trading alliance is actually very limited with regards to industry, resources etc etc. No need to limit ourselves to this. In addition, if we are such an unimportant economy that is unable to survive alone in the world... then why is the whole fecking western economy stalling over a concern that we might leave the EU...

 

TTIP. If you don't know what that is then look it up... Most alarming backdoor trade agreement in my lifetime.

 

god knows what else.

 

Long story short, if you believe that Britain is incapable of managing itself then vote to stay in. If you still have an ounce of national self respect vote to leave and build a stronger britain.

What is alarming is your unfounded and scaremongering claims about Schengen, immigrants, what we can and cannot sell (what has the EU actually stopped us selling), flood risk management and finally and almost amusingly road signs. Road Signs come under the Vienna Convention, this is not an EU convention but a United Nations Economic and Social Council, and dates back to 1968 before we were in the EU, so more lies and spin from a leaver. If you had any self repsect you at least attempt to check your facts.

[Wes Tender]

What is alarming is your unfounded and scaremongering claims about Schengen, immigrants, what we can and cannot sell (what has the EU actually stopped us selling), flood risk management and finally and almost amusingly road signs. Road Signs come under the Vienna Convention, this is not an EU convention but a United Nations Economic and Social Council, and dates back to 1968 before we were in the EU, so more lies and spin from a leaver. If you had any self repsect you at least attempt to check your facts.

 

There are a number of salient points that are influencing a large proportion of the electorate; immigration, loss of Sovereignty, the undemocratic way that the EU is run, our national security, TTIP are some of the main ones.

 

If you wish to concentrate on debating who is responsible for our road signs and to wilfully ignore debating those other issues that most deem to be important, then go ahead.

 

When it comes down to scaremongering, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, and the soon to be ex-President of the USA are in a league of their own.

[buctootim]

given the shambles on the EU run continent, do we honestly think they can govern us better than we can ourselves? ....then the misinformation and propaganda campaign of this government is a joke.

 

.......Most of the eu do not even contribute the required amount of their GDP into defence anyway........ Europe is not a successful economic region in relative terms and as a trading alliance is actually very limited with regards to industry, resources etc etc.

 

So the EU is a joke and we should govern ourselves, but the British Government cant be trusted. The EU tells us all what to do, but EU countries are choosing their own defence budgets. Europe is not a successful economic region, but its the wealthiest continent on Earth, by far.

 

Glad you're clear.

[Whitey Grandad]

I know what the concept of a "single market" is and well remember what it was like trading with other nations before the Single Market and indeed the Common Market.

 

The main point that Hannan raises, is this one:_

 

 

 

Reading the first of those links you provided and I take issue in even the first paragraph setting out the essence of the benefits of the European Single Market.

 

 

 

The EU model must be malfunctioning, as it is very debatable as to whether it improves efficiency or cuts prices, or whether to a lesser degree it can be argued that it stimulates competition or raises quality. No doubt if there were significant reforms, these objectives could be achieved more readily. But the obvious examples of the wastages caused by the CAP, the throwing of dead fish into the sea because quotas had been exceeded, the extra costs and production burdens placed on businesses by the excessive bureaucracy imposed on them, are all examples of how the Single Market does not function to those ideals as it should.

 

This for me was the other telling point in the Hannan article:-

 

 

 

Now, call me a cynic, but I suspect strongly that it is these mainly major multinational companies that comprise the six percent of our businesses that export to the EU markets and that by some strange coincidence, they might well be the business leaders who are against us leaving the EU. I would suggest that if we left the EU, the smaller businesses who are the backbone of the Nation, and those who do not trade with the EU, would then find that by freeing themselves from the EU regulations, that would stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, raise quality and help cut prices.

 

If you knew what a Single Market was then why did you ask?

 

Where on earth does this figure of six percent come from? The true figure is more like 45%.

[Wes Tender]

So the EU is a joke and we should govern ourselves, but the British Government cant be trusted. The EU tells us all what to do, but EU countries are choosing their own defence budgets. Europe is not a successful economic region, but its the wealthiest continent on Earth, by far.

 

Glad you're clear.

 

You overlook the clear distinction. If our politicians cannot be trusted to run the country, we can throw them out at a General Election. If the failed politicians of the EU member states who are lucky enough to find themselves appointed as Commissioners on the EU gravy train don't please us, there is not a damned thing we can do about it.

 

Europe might be the wealthiest continent on Earth, including as it does two of the World's wealthiest countries, Norway and Switzerland who are not EU members, but as you say, in terms of its economies the EU has not grown for the past decade, whereas trade in all of the other continents apart from Antarctica have all grown faster. When it comes down to the wealth of Europe, that is concentrated in the North of Europe and Southern Europe and the ex-Iron Curtain countries are also comparatively poor.

[derry]

Interestingly, it's not about a debate it's about if and where people decide to put their X on June 23rd. It seems to me that everybody that is for leave will vote. It also appears that the remain vote is nowhere near as dedicated and that many youngsters that the remain camp are relying on won't even bother.

 

This morning on the BBC, a panel of young intellects debated, decided they were undecided, anyway probably wouldn't bother voting and felt that was also their peer group majority attitude. Uncontrolled immigration with it's attendant pressures on the NHS, Education, wages etc has already won a lot of votes to leave. It's the one issue the remain campaign don't want mentioned.

 

It's going to be the big issue from the leave camp and a vote winner. A huge proportion of EU immigrants wouldn't even qualify for an entry visa if they weren't EU citizens.

[Wes Tender]

If you knew what a Single Market was then why did you ask?

 

Where on earth does this figure of six percent come from? The true figure is more like 45%.

 

Because of the distinction between a single market and the Single Market. That really was the whole point in Hannan's article.

 

The 6% comes from his article too. Surely the 45% is the amount of trade that those 6% of UK businesses do with the EU. It doesn't seem an unreasonable figure to me when there are around 5.4 million SME businesses in the UK. I make that 324,000 businesses trading with the EU.

[derry]

If you knew what a Single Market was then why did you ask?

 

Where on earth does this figure of six percent come from? The true figure is more like 45%.

 

Not according to the ONS. 94% of businesses don't deal with the EU but have to comply with it's red tape. Only 6% of businesses trade with the EU.

EU imports were nearly 10% higher than exports to the EU last month with a record deficit of £8.1billion.

[moonraker]

There are a number of salient points that are influencing a large proportion of the electorate; immigration, loss of Sovereignty, the undemocratic way that the EU is run, our national security, TTIP are some of the main ones.

 

If you wish to concentrate on debating who is responsible for our road signs and to wilfully ignore debating those other issues that most deem to be important, then go ahead.

 

When it comes down to scaremongering, the Prime Minister, Chancellor, and the soon to be ex-President of the USA are in a league of their own.

 

Very happy to debate all of those things, and have done previously, but the Brexit tactic of throwing in spurious claims about what the EU does or does not do needs constant vigilance

[Wes Tender]

Very happy to debate all of those things, and have done previously, but the Brexit tactic of throwing in spurious claims about what the EU does or does not do needs constant vigilance

 

Of course, throwing in spurious claims is not the exclusive tactic of the Brexit camp. Why, only today, we had Labour's Corbyn and Johnson claiming that the EU immigration policy of freedom of movement of peoples did not have any adverse affect on wages, the NHS and schools. They missed out housing for some reason, as they obviously all come here with caravans.

 

Did you ever think that you would see the day when a leading Labour politician would claim that £350 million per week that could go towards financing the NHS "was a drop in the Ocean"?

 

But I applaud your vigilance when it comes down to the spurious claim about the EU being responsible for the sign posts, whilst simultaneously saying nothing to condemn the claims that every household would be worse off by £4300 if we left, that our Brexit could trigger WW3, or that it would take years to negotiate trade deals with the EU, etc, etc.

 

But as has already been stated many times, the battles that will win the campaign for Brexit, are those involving immigration, sovereignty and the supremacy of British laws over the European Court, and many of the fears over a decline in our economy due to falling trade are mitigated by the cynicism that has grown around the scaremongering put out by the Remainians, much of which has been largely discredited or debunked.

[hutch]

Very happy to debate all of those things, and have done previously, but the Brexit tactic of throwing in spurious claims about what the EU does or does not do needs constant vigilance

 

We're lucky we've got you then aren't we. You can patrol the forum while Charlie catches up on some sleep. Can't let opinions go unanswered after all.

[Wes Tender]

Always entertaining to throw in a bit of satire to lighten the mood, although of course there is always an element of truth it it.

 

 

 

I hadn't recalled this updated version of the series, but good to be reminded. Both very relevant to the current debate on the shortcomings of our EU lords and masters.

[buctootim]

You overlook the clear distinction. If our politicians cannot be trusted to run the country, we can throw them out at a General Election. If the failed politicians of the EU member states who are lucky enough to find themselves appointed as Commissioners on the EU gravy train don't please us, there is not a damned thing we can do about it.

 

Europe might be the wealthiest continent on Earth, including as it does two of the World's wealthiest countries, Norway and Switzerland who are not EU members, but as you say, in terms of its economies the EU has not grown for the past decade, whereas trade in all of the other continents apart from Antarctica have all grown faster. When it comes down to the wealth of Europe, that is concentrated in the North of Europe and Southern Europe and the ex-Iron Curtain countries are also comparatively poor.

 

Commissioners dont run the EU. All of their recommendations have to be approved by the elected European Parliament and by the Council of Ministers (usually the Prime Ministers). For most issues there is also a national veto. Of course growth is slower in Europe than poorer countries. Thats what happens when you have globalisation - capital flows to where labour is cheapest. Thats not an EU issue, but the economic doctrine we follow.

[moonraker]

Of course, throwing in spurious claims is not the exclusive tactic of the Brexit camp. Why, only today, we had Labour's Corbyn and Johnson claiming that the EU immigration policy of freedom of movement of peoples did not have any adverse affect on wages, the NHS and schools. They missed out housing for some reason, as they obviously all come here with caravans.

 

Did you ever think that you would see the day when a leading Labour politician would claim that £350 million per week that could go towards financing the NHS "was a drop in the Ocean"?

 

But I applaud your vigilance when it comes down to the spurious claim about the EU being responsible for the sign posts, whilst simultaneously saying nothing to condemn the claims that every household would be worse off by £4300 if we left, that our Brexit could trigger WW3, or that it would take years to negotiate trade deals with the EU, etc, etc.

 

But as has already been stated many times, the battles that will win the campaign for Brexit, are those involving immigration, sovereignty and the supremacy of British laws over the European Court, and many of the fears over a decline in our economy due to falling trade are mitigated by the cynicism that has grown around the scaremongering put out by the Remainians, much of which has been largely discredited or debunked.

 

There it is again the £350m, that in reality is more like £180m. The net £180m does not include the additional cost to a fully independent UK in recruiting a significant number of additional civil servants to sort out all the new trade deals Brexit promise us and then to administer, police and regulate those deals, plus the additional border control costs, quick fag packet calculation I reckon that would be north of £80m, meaning the eu cost is a approx of 0.7 of our national budget.

Edited 11 May, 2016 by moonraker

[Nolan]

The 350 million is 350 million. Yes 170 million of the 350 Million comes back to the UK. But we do not decide how it is spent. The EU does.

 

So is correct that we will in fact have 350 million to allocate ourselves every week if we leave.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The 350 million is 350 million. Yes 170 million of the 350 Million comes back to the UK. But we do not decide how it is spent. The EU does.

 

So is correct that we will in fact have 350 million to allocate ourselves every week if we leave.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Your numbers would appear to be in question:

 

http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/

[Nolan]

Your numbers would appear to be in question:

 

http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/

Of course it would be in question from remain website.

 

But then they're the same people who try and claiim David Miliband is a member of government and his activism on behalf of remain should count in government spending and not remains campaign allowance.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Of course it would be in question from remain website.

 

But then they're the same people who try and claiim David Miliband is a member of government and his activism on behalf of remain should count in government spending and not remains campaign allowance.

 

So we see yet another on here revert to the usual 'leave' campaign tactic of attempting to discredit any evidence that does not happen to fit into their preconcieved version of reality.

 

If the numbers are wrong then show the forum why they are wrong.

[Nolan]

Do you think that an IN website is Unbiased? More fool you.

 

Do we give more money to the EU than we get back. Yes. So why bother.

 

They need is more than we need them. Its a simple as that.

 

They didn't want to reform, so we wave goodbye.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Do you think that an IN website is Unbiased? More fool you.

 

Do we give more money to the EU than we get back. Yes. So why bother.

 

They need is more than we need them. Its a simple as that.

 

They didn't want to reform, so we wave goodbye.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

So basically you are conceding that you choose to believe everything the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage tell you, while anything that does not fit into that picture is dismissed out of hand as enemy propaganda. Has it ever occured to you that BOTH sides here can be quite 'economical with the truth' when it suites them to be?

 

As it happens that '£350m' number was comprehensively demolished by Andrew Neil on his programme weeks ago.

[badgerx16]

"The claim that the UK sends £350 million per week to the EU is wrong."

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-12/finding-the-facts-the-truth-behind-referendum-claims-on-the-eu-membership-fee/

 

"EU membership does come at a financial cost. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. But it's not £350 million a week. The UK’s discount, or rebate, reduces what we would otherwise be liable to pay.

In 2015, we paid the EU an estimated £13 billion, or £250 million a week."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/eu-referendum-fact-checking-the-big-claims/

 

"....campaigners all too frequently use the higher figure, despite the fact that it is wrong (and some of those making the claim know this full well). For example, the often heard claim that the UK sends “£350 million per week to the EU” is based on this incorrect measure. The amount that the Treasury remits to Brussels, and thus the direct cost to UK taxpayers, always has the rebate deducted before payment is made. Because of this, the correct figure, taking account of the rebate, should be around £280 million per week (based on 2014 data)."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-much-does-membership-of-the-eu-actually-cost-the-uk-a6972976.html

[CB Fry]

"The claim that the UK sends £350 million per week to the EU is wrong."

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-12/finding-the-facts-the-truth-behind-referendum-claims-on-the-eu-membership-fee/

 

"EU membership does come at a financial cost. The UK pays more into the EU budget than it gets back. But it's not £350 million a week. The UK’s discount, or rebate, reduces what we would otherwise be liable to pay.

In 2015, we paid the EU an estimated £13 billion, or £250 million a week."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/eu-referendum-fact-checking-the-big-claims/

 

"....campaigners all too frequently use the higher figure, despite the fact that it is wrong (and some of those making the claim know this full well). For example, the often heard claim that the UK sends “£350 million per week to the EU” is based on this incorrect measure. The amount that the Treasury remits to Brussels, and thus the direct cost to UK taxpayers, always has the rebate deducted before payment is made. Because of this, the correct figure, taking account of the rebate, should be around £280 million per week (based on 2014 data)."

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-much-does-membership-of-the-eu-actually-cost-the-uk-a6972976.html

Pretty spectacular people are still peddling that one when it was comprehensively debunked in about day three of the campaign.