A question.
If I get on a train in London intending to go to Bristol, but then discover that the train I have boarded is heading for Birmingham should I:-
(a) remain on the train in the hope of persuading it to go to Bristol,
(b) remain on the train but refuse to buy any snacks from the trolley, or
(c) leave the train at the earliest opportunity?
RM
A question.
If I get on a train in London intending to go to Bristol, but then discover that the train I have boarded is heading for Birmingham should I:-
(a) remain on the train in the hope of persuading it to go to Bristol,
(b) remain on the train but refuse to buy any snacks from the trolley, or
(c) leave the train at the earliest opportunity?
RM
A question.
If I get on a train in London intending to go to Bristol, but then discover that the train I have boarded is heading for Birmingham should I:-
(a) remain on the train in the hope of persuading it to go to Bristol,
(b) remain on the train but refuse to buy any snacks from the trolley, or
(c) leave the train at the earliest opportunity?
RM
Terrible analogy
Essentially it says nothing more than that if you want to be out of "Birmingham" you should vote to be out of "Birmingham".
Staying in the EU is not a train ride to a fixed destination. Even if it was, "Birmingham" may well prove to be a desirable destination and "Bristol" a hell-hole (not making any judgements on either place in the real world here).
This is just more of exactly the sort of rhetoric that the OP satirised. Both sides have been presenting in the same way. The side they favour will be a wonderful nirvana and the side they oppose will be an apocalyptic nightmare. Life is not that simple and I'm sick to death of people acting like it is.
@stepurhan
I was not suggesting that one destination is definitely more attractive than the other. I was suggesting that if you intended to go to one then the other is not what you intended.
Some politicians suggest that by a combination of reforms & opt-outs we can achieve what the British people apparently want (attractive trading arrangements without loss of sovereignty or excessive immigration) as members of the EU.
The flaw is that this assumes that the other EU members would agree to satisfy our desires and that the EU prospers economically. The second is doubtful (look at the eurozone problems) & the first is wholly unrealistic.
Of course it does not follow that because we cannot have attractive trading arrangements without loss of sovereignty or excessive immigration as members of the EU, then we will have those things as non-members.
I shall be voting leave because on balance I think we would be better out than we would be inside continually seeking to resist the direction in which the rest of the members apparently wish to travel.
RM
@stepurhan
I was not suggesting that one destination is definitely more attractive than the other. I was suggesting that if you intended to go to one then the other is not what you intended.
So, like I said, a terrible analogy. You should not stay on the train to EU if you perceive EU as a bad destination.
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the politicians suggesting we can achieve complete independence within the EU are talking nonsense as well. If we stay in the EU, there will be a price to pay, and that price won't solely be a financial one. The question is whether what we'd get for that price makes it worth paying.
Both sides need to admit the down-sides, while making the case as to why they think the up-sides outweigh them. As the debate stands, I doubt many of the votes cast will be based on the facts, which is quite sad.
I believe there are very few facts.
I think it is a fact that if we leave the EU there will be negative economic consequences initially.
I think it is a fact that the majority of the most influential members of the EU believe that a common currency, free movement of workers across national borders & ever closer union of member states are key benefits of membership of the EU.
I think it is a fact that at present the UK pays more money into the EU coffers than it receives out.
I think it is a fact that EU legislative decisions have an impact in all EU countries (including the UK).
After that I am struggling to identify more facts - as opposed to forecasts & speculations which politicians dress up as facts.
RM
I think it is a fact that at present the UK pays more money into the EU coffers than it receives out.
Accepting for the moment that this and the other things you state are facts (any link to an independent source?) precisely what is the relevance of this fact? The EU is not a profit-making organisation, so you would expect most countries to be putting more in than they get out in pure cash terms. Looking at it in straight cash in/out terms is just silly.
Treating it as more like a subscription fee, what benefits are we getting for that subscription fee? Are those benefits worth whatever (net) amount we are putting in?
Fair enough. I believe that government figures indicate that in 2015 we paid a (net) membership subscription of £8.5bn, equivalent to approximately £23m per day.
RM
Fair enough. I believe that government figures indicate that in 2015 we paid a (net) membership subscription of £8.5bn, equivalent to approximately £23m per day.
RM
The point about the £350 million per week is that we do give that much to the EU and we get back about £194 million in various ways. Logic suggests that it would be more straightforward to simply pay the difference each week but this does not happen and is unlikely to in the future. The reason is that the £350 is completely inn the hands of the EU to do with much as they wish and the money comes back to us much as the EU dictate, often in the form of self promotion such as "This project is EU sponsored" or similar. By not paying the £350 million in the first place, our Government will have full use of the resulting £18.2 billion to use in full in the best way to benefit the UK.
We should not tolerate being handed our own money back by the EU like pocket money to be spent as directed.
"In the event of an exit, will the dead come back to life and eat our children?"
Worse than that , I fear.
Plagues and Pestilence will ravage our fair land with plundering and pillaging rife.
Politicians and others with vested interests will wither away and be unable to lead us any more so that we spiral out of control into the murky depths of despair.
Oh woe is us.
Even worse still, citizens of this fair land will regain control of their destiny which would be a disaster. Everyone knows that the citizens are completely unable to make the right decisions. We all know that it is better for 55,000 EU Civil Servants to tell us what to do, they are the experts in these things.
The consequences of Brexit are just too terrifying to contemplate.
All joking aside - what i have not heard discussed by either side is the positive benefits of staying or going, rather the negitive aspects of staying / going. That's no way to lead informed debate.
There are two key issues not being debated properly:
Did D Cameron Esq get a sufficiently good deal out of EU at the last round of negotiations. If yes stay, if not leave.
and
I don't think the argument is about economics, immigration or trade treaties, it's about whether or not the UK has the ultimate say in what it's laws are and how they were intended to be interpretted.
In my opinion - if one feels it is acceptable that the ultimate arbiter of what a countries laws should be a Court representing a group of countries than fine, if not then vote exit.
Oh and i thought we already had the zombies - a living dead army of useless MEPs who feast on the money generated by the EU, and the vamprical bureaucrats who help them raise it and waste it.
So how do we judge?
DC had an outstanding success at the last round of negotiations - we have all the concessions we asked for, not binding in law of course and only if the rest of the EU agree.
Past performance - has membership been beneficial?
Over the years I have heard phrases such as “French Farmers Beneficiary Fund”, “Loss of Sovereignty”, “Removal of the Veto”, “No control over our borders” and so forth, but not much that has been positive. Now it seems that we are all doomed if we leave.
Alarms and fantasies aside, I think it is fairly certain that Brexit will result in a dent to UK GDP in the short term. Long term of course is more uncertain.
Basically if we vote to remain then the world will explode and everyone will die.
If we vote to leave then the world will explode and everyone will die.
And right up until that moment both sides will complain that the other side is saying that the world will explode.
What is likely is more EU control over UK domestic matters will be imposed, one of the latest proposals could impact our clients who might be plumbers using vans:
" Van operators have been warned that they are living a “charmed life” as the European Commission evaluates introducing HGV-like regulation for the sector. "
source: "Commercial Fleet" (UK).
It is certain the the EU will still require the UK to obey the dictat on VAT rates, eg. infraction proceedings against UK because of UK's 5% VAT rate on insulation materials (but only if Brexit fails).
If Brexit fails excessive expense claims of MEPs will still be a cost incurred by the EU and passed onto the UK. Allegedly the expense claims don't need to be supported by bills / receipts, if that really is true it demonstrates the alleged lack of EU financial governance and financial accountability.
With reports that at least eight other EU Countries have polls suggesting that high percentages of citizens wish their country to leave the EU, quite frankly, even if the UK votes to stay in this time, the breakup of the self-serving, corrupt, undemocratic political organisation that is the European Union will not be far off anyway. Best for us to start making our own way sooner rather than later.
If the UK votes to leave, there is likely to be at least eight other countries that will clamour for their own referendums.
Leaving the EU is not the same as leaving Europe. We are European and proud of it, but the EU is something very different.
Relax, chill out, the inevitable is inevitable, it is just a matter of time really.
The remain side constantly claim that should we leave then all trade with the EU will cease. That, of course, is rubbish. Do the leave campaign really think that German car manufacturers, French farmers, and the Spanish holiday trade will simply sit back and watch their market slashed by 10 to 20%?
Under current EU rules we are blocked from entering into trade agreements with commonwealth countries, the Americas, China, India, and the African countries. Access to the single market would continue virtually unchanged, and, as our production and safety standards are already aligned to those required by the EU such a deal could be agreed within days.
Having said all that, there is one overriding argument, Jeremy Corbyn want’s us to vote to stay, and that is the best reason I can find to vote leave.
Having said all that, there is one overriding argument, Jeremy Corbyn want’s us to vote to stay, and that is the best reason I can find to vote leave.
But that is maybe a red herring, JC superstar possibly does not really, in his heart of heart, want to stay in the EU,I believe he has been against the EU for a fair bit of his life but that stance is pretty tricky to take when the rest of the PLP wants to remain. (bit of a Flip/Flop methinks)
So a vote to leave may actually align that voter with JC despite what he is currently saying.
No not a record. This is how the entire campaign and all debates by both sides has been run. Both sides are a disgrace in my opinion.
Your point is correct, but, I do think that a Prime Minister misusing government departments and civil servants to spread false information and propaganda is an utter disgrace.
No not a record. This is how the entire campaign and all debates by both sides has been run. Both sides are a disgrace in my opinion.
Your point is correct, but, I do think that a Prime Minister misusing government departments and civil servants to spread false information and propaganda is an utter disgrace.
"In the event of an exit, will the dead come back to life and eat our children?"
Just amusing myself over lunch I wondered if there was an EU Directive related to the dead coming back to life. I don't think there is and probably not one about eating children either .... yet. Perhaps one of the 55,000 civil servants in the European Commission will get the job of drafting out some related Directives at some time in the future.
It is interesting to see how there seems to be a clear divide between older and younger voters.
Older people have experience of the type of political and dictatorial beast that the EU could become, and probably will if allowed to, as the aims of the European Project are publicly stated. "Ever Closer Union." Mr Cameron is clearly deluded if he thinks we are not going to be drawn into this unification of people under a single unelected Government. Besides, what is the point of belonging to a club if you are not in favour of its aims. I also think Mr Cameron is on the wrong track if he thinks we would be able to veto the admission of Turkey (and the other counties lining up to join the EU). Does he seriously think that a single veto by the UK against 27 other members is really going to stop this happening? Pull the other one.
The younger generation seem to be more interested in leisure time and free movement throughout Europe for holidays and base their stay vote along these lines. This seems to be a national trend if the experience of my Pub/Restaurant client is typical where his younger staff now clearly state that they do not want to work at weekends presumably to freely move about.
It is of course misguided to think that not being part of the EU will make much difference to travelling in Europe. You already need to carry a Passport to travel to anywhere in "Europe" (as proof of identity) and when you are in "Europe" you can travel wherever you like across borders freely. Not much would change if we left the European Union, free movement would still be the same.
One thing is sure, no matter what I think, High Street Bosses think, Industrial CEO's think, Luvvies think, 65 Footsie 100 Bosses think (based on the declaration of 35 of them who want to stay in therefore 65 must want to leave) (OK a bit of a cheat), it is all up to individual voters in the end and at this point I have absolutely no idea what the outcome will be.
"In the event of an exit, will the dead come back to life and eat our children?"
Just amusing myself over lunch I wondered if there was an EU Directive related to the dead coming back to life. I don't think there is and probably not one about eating children either .... yet. Perhaps one of the 55,000 civil servants in the European Commission will get the job of drafting out some related Directives at some time in the future.
Nah, not in the short term at least, they will be too busy asset stripping Greece. Maybe after the Acropolis has been relocated to Stuttgart?
Is Theresa May quietly consolidating her position prior to a bid for leadership after 23 June?
Whilst Cameron & Osborne appear as hysterical tricksters who are dividing the Tory party, she stands ready to soothe frayed nerves in the aftermath of the referendum & move serenely into number 10 (whatever the outcome of the vote).
RM
What annoys me most is GO saying if we leave Europe house prices will fall and we will go in to recession. This is politicking of the most sordid kind.
Whatever happens George, both are likely because of your inept handling of the economy and your shake it up and see what happens approach with more reverse gears than an Italian tank, rather than logical, researched and thought through (past the next election) changes!
Looking at the economic downturn in many EU countries I suspect we are in for recession and austerity without end if we stay in. Maybe what George is really saying is that we won't need austerity longer than 2 years if we leave.
Is that just my wishful thinking, or are we doomed to suffer austerity for ever, be it stay or leave?
Looking at the economic downturn in many EU countries I suspect we are in for recession and austerity without end if we stay in. Maybe what George is really saying is that we won't need austerity longer than 2 years if we leave.
Is that just my wishful thinking, or are we doomed to suffer austerity for ever, be it stay or leave?
As everyone knows, the velocity of circulation of money is the key to progress, not the amount of money available. If I sit on a million pounds invested in a deposit account and have no incentive to do anything with it, then little happens.
If an incentive arises to say, build a house, (lower duties or other taxation) then that money can be used to create much activity, purchasing building materials, employing architects, surveyors, electricians, plumbers, labourers, and many other services will move that money around which then gets spent by all those people on purchasing further goods and services from many others. The snowball effect of just one person deciding to do something is breathtaking with many benefits such as the creation of a new asset (a house), income for others (goods sold and wages), taxation for the Government, and many happy people.
I believe that once we regain control of our country from the parasite that is the EU, we will be able (with the right Government) to move away from austerity and start to plan properly for our future, particularly in the area of providing proper incentives for everyone (not just the rich) to actually make something useful happen, and the rewards will be to the benefit of everyone in this Country.
No need to print money, just start circulating the money we already have at a faster rate, when we are free of EU control.
Edit : I would add that increasing taxation as a way to raise monies for the Government to spend will never work. There has to be a ceiling in the end where there will be no incentive for anyone to do anything. One benefit of freeing ourselves from the EU parasite is that VAT rate reductions would be possible. At the moment we cannot reduce VAT without permission from the EU but without their control, we can set our own rates.
An EU exit is essential, not just for the economy, but to avoid being dragged into a federal state of Europe where power is consistently being transferred from the EU people to the EU elite. Cameron should be warning what a Remain vote REALLY means, but he won't!
I also have a suspicion that the implementation of the Five Presidents report will be accelerated in we vote remain, so we have full fiscal and political union to 'look forward to' if Cameron gets his way.
No need to print money, just start circulating the money we already have at a faster rate, when we are free of EU control.
Edit : I would add that increasing taxation as a way to raise monies for the Government to spend will never work. There has to be a ceiling in the end where there will be no incentive for anyone to do anything. One benefit of freeing ourselves from the EU parasite is that VAT rate reductions would be possible. At the moment we cannot reduce VAT without permission from the EU but without their control, we can set our own rates.
The velocity of monetary circulation argument is fine but re taxation good/bad does of course depend if C, I or G expenditure results in a difference re circulation speed; no idea if it does or does not.
My gut inclination is always lower taxes but individuals in the UK do tend to have a high marginal propensity to consume imports so increased consumer expenditure by lower taxes may not lead to the bonanza sought as we experience leakage.
Where EU exit may give greater flexibility is re government contract placement and support for particular industries within the UK, however whilst the infant industry "protection" approach may have validity it may , over time, also stifle the Darwinian approach of adapt or become extinct; in effect tying the invisible hand behind our back.
I hate to say that whilst I am not sold on the constrictions on trade the EU can create nor am I sold on the promised mercantile revolution of Brexit.
This is the crux of the economic debate, depending on assumptions re the model we can get to any outcome we desire, accordingly I think arguing the economics is frankly a waste of time.
I have forgotten most economics I ever learned, maybe with a textbook or two and a bit of time and effort I could possibly write pretty equal arguments for and against exit, my tutor would then say "well argued DJKL, you covered the points" and then congratulate me on never reaching a conclusion.
Anyone seen Brexit, the movie - worth watching, ignoring the obvious slant some good points, especially on the perils of protectionism and "fortress Europe" and the dangers of subsidising uneconomic businesses.
The catch is that Brexit may lead to greater protectionism of our own industries; like a puppy it is for life not just for Christmas, so in the future a well meaning left of centre party might well decide to nationalise this, support that etc; one of the reasons JC might, in some ways, like Brexit despite where he is campaigning re the issue.
There can be sound reasons to protect an industry but politicians, being vote chasers, tend to like spending our money keeping constituents happy and sometimes have about one week of forward vision, so can be dangerous.
"I have forgotten most economics I ever learned, maybe with a textbook or two and a bit of time and effort I could possibly write pretty equal arguments for and against exit, my tutor would then say "well argued DJKL, you covered the points" and then congratulate me on never reaching a conclusion."
This is true. Economics is not like driving a train where there is only one way to do it, no matter who you are. Economics is not a science and economists can be both right and wrong at the same time. What is probably true is that you would tend to take a particular economic approach depending on the outcome you want to achieve.
It does help, though, that when we elect people to represent us in Parliament, they are able to be fully engaged in the debates about the way the UK is run without having to consider if they are complying with EU legislation. The buck should stop at Westminster and then the arguments of both sides can be considered with more resolve knowing that their decisions have been made with UK interests fully in mind.
Tornado said "Older people have experience of the type of political and dictatorial beast that the EU could become"
Really? When was that? How old do you have to be to have had that experience?
And hands up those who really think that UK does a £350m bank transfer every week and that Brussels does a transfer of £180m or what ever sending money back. The bank charges must be huge.
So we pay £180m a week or whatever and all I have seen in moaning about that figure. Nobody has talked about what we get for it.
We get membership of an organisation that provides huge benefits - ask the universities; ask anybody involved in R&D; ask people who were exporting to Europe before we were a member; ask Brits who go an live in Spain and more.
And we would get to have some real influence on the future direction of the EU if we didn't just sit on the sidelines and moan and plead special case.
We should get in there and join forces with the other members who think it needs changing (Danes, Dutch, Spanish and more).
Well, if Radio 4 at lunchtime today is anything to go by the Spanish will not be that keen on cooperation
Per the programme (back of 1.00) , I understand a left of centre coalition who wish EU reform were asked about joining forces with Dave to reform from within, the response would not give me confidence anything will ever happen, those of the left get tainted by associating with those of the right (and vice versa). Consider Labour who have done really well up here since "Better Together" in Scotland or Liberals having a Coalition , that worked well for them!!!
The fact is that political (right/left) differences tend to mean that united effort to reform by joint member states will be a waste of time, the EU has cleverly adopted the UK traditional tactics when dealing with foreigners; divide and rule.
I hate to say it but, if reform of the EU from within can be done, why has nobody done it?
An EU wide referendum on whether its "citizens" (not sure what we all are individually called re the EU) want it drastically reformed would possibly suggest the majority do want reform, but anyone who negotiates as part of their job knows that settling an agreement becomes much more difficult the more parties that are involved, unless one of them scares all the others by threats that the others believe will be implemented.
So maybe we should tell them that if we leave we are considering setting up our own trade association with those other countries that might want to join us; pretty sure a few others might follow our lead.
Whilst still not sure if leaving is a great idea I am sure that we have zero chance of reform by persuasion and argument, the choice is clear, stay in and accept this or stick the boot in and see what happens, but the "we will sort it by talking" argument to me just does not hold water.
"Whilst still not sure if leaving is a great idea I am sure that we have zero chance of reform by persuasion and argument, the choice is clear, stay in and accept this or stick the boot in and see what happens, but the "we will sort it by talking" argument to me just does not hold water."
I can agree completely with this view.
The European Project has clear aims and there has been plenty of time to revise these aims, but with little success by any member. There is simply no point in belonging to this Club if we do not agree with the Club rules and those rules are not going to change, no matter how much begging Mr Cameron does.
The European Union is a political entity created for its own self-serving benefit and a clear aim to have as much control as possible over as many people as possible. "Ever Closer Union" begs the question, ever closer union to what? Each other or the entity that is the European Union.
The outcome of this referendum will not be decided by the few representatives of those big business and institutions that have come out in favour of remain. They only have one vote each. The decision will be made by millions of citizens of the UK no matter what their race, religion, gender or age. If they have a vote then they are able to contribute to our future and that is what democracy is really about, not being dictated to by a parasitic organisation that only exists for its own benefit.
Replies (94)
Comments for this post are now closed.
It depends who you believe (if anybody).
RM
I thought that was going to be mandated by Brussels if we stay.
A question.
If I get on a train in London intending to go to Bristol, but then discover that the train I have boarded is heading for Birmingham should I:-
(a) remain on the train in the hope of persuading it to go to Bristol,
(b) remain on the train but refuse to buy any snacks from the trolley, or
(c) leave the train at the earliest opportunity?
RM
Fantastic analogy
Essentially it says nothing more than that if you want to be out of "Birmingham" you should vote to be out of "Birmingham".
Staying in the EU is not a train ride to a fixed destination. Even if it was, "Birmingham" may well prove to be a desirable destination and "Bristol" a hell-hole (not making any judgements on either place in the real world here).
This is just more of exactly the sort of rhetoric that the OP satirised. Both sides have been presenting in the same way. The side they favour will be a wonderful nirvana and the side they oppose will be an apocalyptic nightmare. Life is not that simple and I'm sick to death of people acting like it is.
@stepurhan
I was not suggesting that one destination is definitely more attractive than the other. I was suggesting that if you intended to go to one then the other is not what you intended.
Some politicians suggest that by a combination of reforms & opt-outs we can achieve what the British people apparently want (attractive trading arrangements without loss of sovereignty or excessive immigration) as members of the EU.
The flaw is that this assumes that the other EU members would agree to satisfy our desires and that the EU prospers economically. The second is doubtful (look at the eurozone problems) & the first is wholly unrealistic.
Of course it does not follow that because we cannot have attractive trading arrangements without loss of sovereignty or excessive immigration as members of the EU, then we will have those things as non-members.
I shall be voting leave because on balance I think we would be better out than we would be inside continually seeking to resist the direction in which the rest of the members apparently wish to travel.
RM
For what it's worth, I agree with you that the politicians suggesting we can achieve complete independence within the EU are talking nonsense as well. If we stay in the EU, there will be a price to pay, and that price won't solely be a financial one. The question is whether what we'd get for that price makes it worth paying.
Both sides need to admit the down-sides, while making the case as to why they think the up-sides outweigh them. As the debate stands, I doubt many of the votes cast will be based on the facts, which is quite sad.
I believe there are very few facts.
I think it is a fact that if we leave the EU there will be negative economic consequences initially.
I think it is a fact that the majority of the most influential members of the EU believe that a common currency, free movement of workers across national borders & ever closer union of member states are key benefits of membership of the EU.
I think it is a fact that at present the UK pays more money into the EU coffers than it receives out.
I think it is a fact that EU legislative decisions have an impact in all EU countries (including the UK).
After that I am struggling to identify more facts - as opposed to forecasts & speculations which politicians dress up as facts.
RM
Treating it as more like a subscription fee, what benefits are we getting for that subscription fee? Are those benefits worth whatever (net) amount we are putting in?
Fair enough. I believe that government figures indicate that in 2015 we paid a (net) membership subscription of £8.5bn, equivalent to approximately £23m per day.
RM
The point about the £350 million per week is that we do give that much to the EU and we get back about £194 million in various ways. Logic suggests that it would be more straightforward to simply pay the difference each week but this does not happen and is unlikely to in the future. The reason is that the £350 is completely inn the hands of the EU to do with much as they wish and the money comes back to us much as the EU dictate, often in the form of self promotion such as "This project is EU sponsored" or similar. By not paying the £350 million in the first place, our Government will have full use of the resulting £18.2 billion to use in full in the best way to benefit the UK.
We should not tolerate being handed our own money back by the EU like pocket money to be spent as directed.
"In the event of an exit, will the dead come back to life and eat our children?"
Worse than that , I fear.
Plagues and Pestilence will ravage our fair land with plundering and pillaging rife.
Politicians and others with vested interests will wither away and be unable to lead us any more so that we spiral out of control into the murky depths of despair.
Oh woe is us.
Even worse still, citizens of this fair land will regain control of their destiny which would be a disaster. Everyone knows that the citizens are completely unable to make the right decisions. We all know that it is better for 55,000 EU Civil Servants to tell us what to do, they are the experts in these things.
The consequences of Brexit are just too terrifying to contemplate.
Go EU.
I'm more worried about the vampires
http://newsthump.com/2016/05/23/transylvania-joining-eu-could-see-one-mi...
All joking aside - what i have not heard discussed by either side is the positive benefits of staying or going, rather the negitive aspects of staying / going. That's no way to lead informed debate.
There are two key issues not being debated properly:
Did D Cameron Esq get a sufficiently good deal out of EU at the last round of negotiations. If yes stay, if not leave.
and
I don't think the argument is about economics, immigration or trade treaties, it's about whether or not the UK has the ultimate say in what it's laws are and how they were intended to be interpretted.
In my opinion - if one feels it is acceptable that the ultimate arbiter of what a countries laws should be a Court representing a group of countries than fine, if not then vote exit.
Oh and i thought we already had the zombies - a living dead army of useless MEPs who feast on the money generated by the EU, and the vamprical bureaucrats who help them raise it and waste it.
So how do we judge?
DC had an outstanding success at the last round of negotiations - we have all the concessions we asked for, not binding in law of course and only if the rest of the EU agree.
Past performance - has membership been beneficial?
Over the years I have heard phrases such as “French Farmers Beneficiary Fund”, “Loss of Sovereignty”, “Removal of the Veto”, “No control over our borders” and so forth, but not much that has been positive. Now it seems that we are all doomed if we leave.
Alarms and fantasies aside, I think it is fairly certain that Brexit will result in a dent to UK GDP in the short term. Long term of course is more uncertain.
An end to the fear mongering from both sides would be a start. Why not engage in a proper debate?
Basically if we vote to remain then the world will explode and everyone will die.
If we vote to leave then the world will explode and everyone will die.
And right up until that moment both sides will complain that the other side is saying that the world will explode.
If Brexit fails...
What is likely is more EU control over UK domestic matters will be imposed, one of the latest proposals could impact our clients who might be plumbers using vans:
" Van operators have been warned that they are living a “charmed life” as the European Commission evaluates introducing HGV-like regulation for the sector. "
source: "Commercial Fleet" (UK).
It is certain the the EU will still require the UK to obey the dictat on VAT rates, eg. infraction proceedings against UK because of UK's 5% VAT rate on insulation materials (but only if Brexit fails).
If Brexit fails excessive expense claims of MEPs will still be a cost incurred by the EU and passed onto the UK. Allegedly the expense claims don't need to be supported by bills / receipts, if that really is true it demonstrates the alleged lack of EU financial governance and financial accountability.
Exit or not, the dead will continue to come back to life - just as they do on this forum.
With reports that at least eight other EU Countries have polls suggesting that high percentages of citizens wish their country to leave the EU, quite frankly, even if the UK votes to stay in this time, the breakup of the self-serving, corrupt, undemocratic political organisation that is the European Union will not be far off anyway. Best for us to start making our own way sooner rather than later.
If the UK votes to leave, there is likely to be at least eight other countries that will clamour for their own referendums.
Leaving the EU is not the same as leaving Europe. We are European and proud of it, but the EU is something very different.
Relax, chill out, the inevitable is inevitable, it is just a matter of time really.
The remain side constantly claim that should we leave then all trade with the EU will cease. That, of course, is rubbish. Do the leave campaign really think that German car manufacturers, French farmers, and the Spanish holiday trade will simply sit back and watch their market slashed by 10 to 20%?
Under current EU rules we are blocked from entering into trade agreements with commonwealth countries, the Americas, China, India, and the African countries. Access to the single market would continue virtually unchanged, and, as our production and safety standards are already aligned to those required by the EU such a deal could be agreed within days.
Having said all that, there is one overriding argument, Jeremy Corbyn want’s us to vote to stay, and that is the best reason I can find to vote leave.
But that is maybe a red herring, JC superstar possibly does not really, in his heart of heart, want to stay in the EU,I believe he has been against the EU for a fair bit of his life but that stance is pretty tricky to take when the rest of the PLP wants to remain. (bit of a Flip/Flop methinks)
So a vote to leave may actually align that voter with JC despite what he is currently saying.
Right on cue -another resurrection
20 posts and no information, just some dogma and some nonsense.
Is his a record?
Thanks for your useful contribution.
No not a record. This is how the entire campaign and all debates by both sides has been run. Both sides are a disgrace in my opinion.
Your point is correct, but, I do think that a Prime Minister misusing government departments and civil servants to spread false information and propaganda is an utter disgrace.
Your point is correct, but, I do think that a Prime Minister misusing government departments and civil servants to spread false information and propaganda is an utter disgrace.
Isn't that standard government behaviour?
Maybe, but this 'crew' has been truly exceptional.
"In the event of an exit, will the dead come back to life and eat our children?"
Just amusing myself over lunch I wondered if there was an EU Directive related to the dead coming back to life. I don't think there is and probably not one about eating children either .... yet. Perhaps one of the 55,000 civil servants in the European Commission will get the job of drafting out some related Directives at some time in the future.
It is interesting to see how there seems to be a clear divide between older and younger voters.
Older people have experience of the type of political and dictatorial beast that the EU could become, and probably will if allowed to, as the aims of the European Project are publicly stated. "Ever Closer Union." Mr Cameron is clearly deluded if he thinks we are not going to be drawn into this unification of people under a single unelected Government. Besides, what is the point of belonging to a club if you are not in favour of its aims. I also think Mr Cameron is on the wrong track if he thinks we would be able to veto the admission of Turkey (and the other counties lining up to join the EU). Does he seriously think that a single veto by the UK against 27 other members is really going to stop this happening? Pull the other one.
The younger generation seem to be more interested in leisure time and free movement throughout Europe for holidays and base their stay vote along these lines. This seems to be a national trend if the experience of my Pub/Restaurant client is typical where his younger staff now clearly state that they do not want to work at weekends presumably to freely move about.
It is of course misguided to think that not being part of the EU will make much difference to travelling in Europe. You already need to carry a Passport to travel to anywhere in "Europe" (as proof of identity) and when you are in "Europe" you can travel wherever you like across borders freely. Not much would change if we left the European Union, free movement would still be the same.
One thing is sure, no matter what I think, High Street Bosses think, Industrial CEO's think, Luvvies think, 65 Footsie 100 Bosses think (based on the declaration of 35 of them who want to stay in therefore 65 must want to leave) (OK a bit of a cheat), it is all up to individual voters in the end and at this point I have absolutely no idea what the outcome will be.
Exciting times, almost like Eurovision.
Nah, not in the short term at least, they will be too busy asset stripping Greece. Maybe after the Acropolis has been relocated to Stuttgart?
Is Theresa May quietly consolidating her position prior to a bid for leadership after 23 June?
Whilst Cameron & Osborne appear as hysterical tricksters who are dividing the Tory party, she stands ready to soothe frayed nerves in the aftermath of the referendum & move serenely into number 10 (whatever the outcome of the vote).
RM
What annoys me most is GO saying if we leave Europe house prices will fall and we will go in to recession. This is politicking of the most sordid kind.
Whatever happens George, both are likely because of your inept handling of the economy and your shake it up and see what happens approach with more reverse gears than an Italian tank, rather than logical, researched and thought through (past the next election) changes!
Looking at the economic downturn in many EU countries I suspect we are in for recession and austerity without end if we stay in. Maybe what George is really saying is that we won't need austerity longer than 2 years if we leave.
Is that just my wishful thinking, or are we doomed to suffer austerity for ever, be it stay or leave?
As everyone knows, the velocity of circulation of money is the key to progress, not the amount of money available. If I sit on a million pounds invested in a deposit account and have no incentive to do anything with it, then little happens.
If an incentive arises to say, build a house, (lower duties or other taxation) then that money can be used to create much activity, purchasing building materials, employing architects, surveyors, electricians, plumbers, labourers, and many other services will move that money around which then gets spent by all those people on purchasing further goods and services from many others. The snowball effect of just one person deciding to do something is breathtaking with many benefits such as the creation of a new asset (a house), income for others (goods sold and wages), taxation for the Government, and many happy people.
I believe that once we regain control of our country from the parasite that is the EU, we will be able (with the right Government) to move away from austerity and start to plan properly for our future, particularly in the area of providing proper incentives for everyone (not just the rich) to actually make something useful happen, and the rewards will be to the benefit of everyone in this Country.
No need to print money, just start circulating the money we already have at a faster rate, when we are free of EU control.
Edit : I would add that increasing taxation as a way to raise monies for the Government to spend will never work. There has to be a ceiling in the end where there will be no incentive for anyone to do anything. One benefit of freeing ourselves from the EU parasite is that VAT rate reductions would be possible. At the moment we cannot reduce VAT without permission from the EU but without their control, we can set our own rates.
Agreed.
An EU exit is essential, not just for the economy, but to avoid being dragged into a federal state of Europe where power is consistently being transferred from the EU people to the EU elite. Cameron should be warning what a Remain vote REALLY means, but he won't!
I also have a suspicion that the implementation of the Five Presidents report will be accelerated in we vote remain, so we have full fiscal and political union to 'look forward to' if Cameron gets his way.
But who will save Europe?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/673068/Germany-Brexit-EU-referendum-...
The velocity of monetary circulation argument is fine but re taxation good/bad does of course depend if C, I or G expenditure results in a difference re circulation speed; no idea if it does or does not.
My gut inclination is always lower taxes but individuals in the UK do tend to have a high marginal propensity to consume imports so increased consumer expenditure by lower taxes may not lead to the bonanza sought as we experience leakage.
Where EU exit may give greater flexibility is re government contract placement and support for particular industries within the UK, however whilst the infant industry "protection" approach may have validity it may , over time, also stifle the Darwinian approach of adapt or become extinct; in effect tying the invisible hand behind our back.
I hate to say that whilst I am not sold on the constrictions on trade the EU can create nor am I sold on the promised mercantile revolution of Brexit.
This is the crux of the economic debate, depending on assumptions re the model we can get to any outcome we desire, accordingly I think arguing the economics is frankly a waste of time.
I have forgotten most economics I ever learned, maybe with a textbook or two and a bit of time and effort I could possibly write pretty equal arguments for and against exit, my tutor would then say "well argued DJKL, you covered the points" and then congratulate me on never reaching a conclusion.
Anyone seen Brexit, the movie - worth watching, ignoring the obvious slant some good points, especially on the perils of protectionism and "fortress Europe" and the dangers of subsidising uneconomic businesses.
This is a good video too, introduced by Sir Patrick Moore, and a lot shorter than Brexit-The Movie.
https://youtu.be/Ut6TGu1MG34
Yes, The Movie is well made.
The catch is that Brexit may lead to greater protectionism of our own industries; like a puppy it is for life not just for Christmas, so in the future a well meaning left of centre party might well decide to nationalise this, support that etc; one of the reasons JC might, in some ways, like Brexit despite where he is campaigning re the issue.
There can be sound reasons to protect an industry but politicians, being vote chasers, tend to like spending our money keeping constituents happy and sometimes have about one week of forward vision, so can be dangerous.
DJKL Wrote -
"I have forgotten most economics I ever learned, maybe with a textbook or two and a bit of time and effort I could possibly write pretty equal arguments for and against exit, my tutor would then say "well argued DJKL, you covered the points" and then congratulate me on never reaching a conclusion."
This is true. Economics is not like driving a train where there is only one way to do it, no matter who you are. Economics is not a science and economists can be both right and wrong at the same time. What is probably true is that you would tend to take a particular economic approach depending on the outcome you want to achieve.
It does help, though, that when we elect people to represent us in Parliament, they are able to be fully engaged in the debates about the way the UK is run without having to consider if they are complying with EU legislation. The buck should stop at Westminster and then the arguments of both sides can be considered with more resolve knowing that their decisions have been made with UK interests fully in mind.
Interesting polling type information from Lord Ashcroft at
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/05/control-v-risk-which-will-win-out-i...
RM
Tornado said "Older people have experience of the type of political and dictatorial beast that the EU could become"
Really? When was that? How old do you have to be to have had that experience?
And hands up those who really think that UK does a £350m bank transfer every week and that Brussels does a transfer of £180m or what ever sending money back. The bank charges must be huge.
So we pay £180m a week or whatever and all I have seen in moaning about that figure. Nobody has talked about what we get for it.
We get membership of an organisation that provides huge benefits - ask the universities; ask anybody involved in R&D; ask people who were exporting to Europe before we were a member; ask Brits who go an live in Spain and more.
And we would get to have some real influence on the future direction of the EU if we didn't just sit on the sidelines and moan and plead special case.
We should get in there and join forces with the other members who think it needs changing (Danes, Dutch, Spanish and more).
Well, if Radio 4 at lunchtime today is anything to go by the Spanish will not be that keen on cooperation
Per the programme (back of 1.00) , I understand a left of centre coalition who wish EU reform were asked about joining forces with Dave to reform from within, the response would not give me confidence anything will ever happen, those of the left get tainted by associating with those of the right (and vice versa). Consider Labour who have done really well up here since "Better Together" in Scotland or Liberals having a Coalition , that worked well for them!!!
The fact is that political (right/left) differences tend to mean that united effort to reform by joint member states will be a waste of time, the EU has cleverly adopted the UK traditional tactics when dealing with foreigners; divide and rule.
I hate to say it but, if reform of the EU from within can be done, why has nobody done it?
An EU wide referendum on whether its "citizens" (not sure what we all are individually called re the EU) want it drastically reformed would possibly suggest the majority do want reform, but anyone who negotiates as part of their job knows that settling an agreement becomes much more difficult the more parties that are involved, unless one of them scares all the others by threats that the others believe will be implemented.
So maybe we should tell them that if we leave we are considering setting up our own trade association with those other countries that might want to join us; pretty sure a few others might follow our lead.
Whilst still not sure if leaving is a great idea I am sure that we have zero chance of reform by persuasion and argument, the choice is clear, stay in and accept this or stick the boot in and see what happens, but the "we will sort it by talking" argument to me just does not hold water.
DJKL wrote -
"Whilst still not sure if leaving is a great idea I am sure that we have zero chance of reform by persuasion and argument, the choice is clear, stay in and accept this or stick the boot in and see what happens, but the "we will sort it by talking" argument to me just does not hold water."
I can agree completely with this view.
The European Project has clear aims and there has been plenty of time to revise these aims, but with little success by any member. There is simply no point in belonging to this Club if we do not agree with the Club rules and those rules are not going to change, no matter how much begging Mr Cameron does.
The European Union is a political entity created for its own self-serving benefit and a clear aim to have as much control as possible over as many people as possible. "Ever Closer Union" begs the question, ever closer union to what? Each other or the entity that is the European Union.
The outcome of this referendum will not be decided by the few representatives of those big business and institutions that have come out in favour of remain. They only have one vote each. The decision will be made by millions of citizens of the UK no matter what their race, religion, gender or age. If they have a vote then they are able to contribute to our future and that is what democracy is really about, not being dictated to by a parasitic organisation that only exists for its own benefit.
My postal voting ballot paper arrived today. Woo - hoo.
RM
Out of interest, does the guidance on filling in the form still depict ticking the remain option?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/eu-referendum-voting-pack_uk_574c9...
Pages