UKC

This is it. It works. It's not been perfect - the rush to expand has admitted some countries that weren't ready, the Euro in particular has been flawed, though the concept is fine.

There's loads to do. Higher profile Euro representatives would be good. A better, more coordinated response to refugees is vital, and on humanitarian grounds, rather than purely selfish ones, would be better still. A recognition that admission to our exclusive club depends upon certain inalienable human rights, so sorry, Turkey, make your call - you can't become Islamic AND join the EU - you choose.

The alternative? Nobody knows. That's it. And the alternatives range from 'well, not ,much will change', (yeah, right) to frigging Armageddon, including the W word: Russia has a pop at Ukraine, there's some border issues in the Balkans, .. what happens then ??...,

So... either vote for the certainty that we remain, and can incrementally things on... or thow everything up in the air and hope for the best. And why WOULDN'T you trust, ahem, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farrage?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I agree entirely with this, but to avoid the leavers accusing you of playing the man not the ball I'd probably omit the references to individuals at the end. (Not that I disagree with the sentiment)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Agree totally with the sentiment. Leave is leap in the dark, which in principle is not always bad. Risks can be a good thing. But what i struggle to see with the Brexit (god I hate that word) arguments is the lack of any tangible benefit.

More democratic.... only it won't be.
More locally accountable.....only it won't be
Able to control migration...only we won't
More open trading with the rest of the world...only there won't be as we can already

I respect that people may not want to be in the EU and each must make up their own mind. But I cannot see any reason other than not liking the principle or wanting to show how frustrated with the powers that be people are. And for those reasons taking a big leap into the unknown doesn't seem proportionate.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well said

In reply to Badgers:

It will be very democratic, we'll vote for whoever Rupert Murdoch tells us to vote for and then he'll tell them what to do. Just like now but more so.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


So having told us why its compelling to stay you proceed to list a lot of really bad things about the EU, a list which could of course, be much longer. So not really that compelling after all, given that some of those things aren't just a bit bad, they could well be catastrophic, how much longer can southern Europe carry on with the massive levels of youth unemployment and austerity forced upon it by being in the euro before the civil unrest could explode? Indeed, it's problems of its own making that could well destroy the EU rather than us leaving.


The alternative is not being in the EU, like Canada, the USA, Japan, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland etc. Yes the last three are in the EEA but they're not in the EU and very happy not to be so.


So all that ridiculous scaremongering has got to you. We'd be leaving the EU, we don't become a fascist dictatorship or a failed state just because of that. Why on earth would it precipitate war in Europe? Its an utterly ridiculous assertion, democracies don't fight wars with democracies. We will still trade with Europe, we will still go there on holiday and vice versa, we will still cooperate on matters of mutual interest just like we do now with the countries I listed above.


What happens then is that the EU sits on its hands for months on end paralised by its inability to agree anything between 27 different countries who all want to do something different just like they did over Serbia and just like they are doing now over Syria, whilst in the meantime it will fall to NATO to deal with.


And be certain that we can be dragged down by the sinking ship that is the EU, paralysed by problems of its own making, naval gazing as it becomes an ever smaller share of the global economy and increasingly less influential. As for moving things on, if we could successfully reform the EU we'd have done it by now after 41 years yet it's never been in a greater state of crisis. Even with a gun held to their heads with the threat of our depature, its second biggest net contributer, it still couldn't come up with any meaningful reform, why on earth would it bother once we've played our trumpcard and lost?


It may have escaped your notice, but none of them are on the ballot paper. If we did leave then whoever became PM would of course be held to account at a general election in less than 4 years time and could be replaced by someone else of our choosing, just as it should be in a democracy and just as doesn't happen in the EU.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
There is a very high risk in remaining. There is no reason to remain! UK Plc should decide its own future, no one else.
DC

In reply to pec:



Meh yes actually it does.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

What are your thoughts on the fact that the UK people are totally fed up, cynical, disengaged, etc. etc with politics and the government, that they probably just see the behemoth that is Brussels and the EU as yet another great fat layer of bollocks sat on top of what they're already pissed off about?

In reply to Lusk:

You're undoubtedly correct, but shitting in your own food because you don't like the chef doesn't strike me as a good way forward.

In reply to Removed User:

Sacking the chefs, and taking over running your own kitchen would be though.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

>UK Plc should decide its own future, no one else.

I just don't get this argument. How do we expect to be able to arrange free trade, competition law, environmental protection, sustainable fishing, etc. all by ourselves without talking to our neighbours? How on earth can anyone imagine that the best way to run Europe is a collection of nation states all doing whatever they see as their own interest on any issue?

jcm

In reply to Lusk:


My thoughts are that that is exactly the biggest driver of this. Many people just want to give the establishment, bankers, etc a kicking and this is their chance. Once the people lose trust in their leaders, terrible things happen, and this is just one terrible thing which may happen and has been in the pipeline for a while. I suspect it will get worse before it gets better too, since if we do leave two things are certain; first, people will be even worse off than they are now and naturally won't blame their own decision for that; second, they will find that they don't actually get much of what they were hoping to get (to take one trivial example, the mini-problem with refugees being smuggled into Kent will get worse and not better).

jcm

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I keep seeing people talk about environmental protection as one of the big plus points, but without any real detail. Having lived and worked around Europe, what I can say is that a lot of EU regulation on environmental protection is just simply ignored around Europe, except by the UK.

Furthermore, some EU policies like the CAP and CFP are actually having a massive negative impact on wildlife. This is from the WWF website:

Despite the infamous 1992 collapse of Canada’s northern cod populations because of overfishing, EU fisheries ministers failed to learn from these lessons and ignored scientific advice on recommended cod catches for European waters, particularly in the North Sea.

For over a decade, the EU Fisheries Council set higher quotas for cod catches than recommended by ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea), resulting in seriously depleted populations. It was only in 2008 that the EU finally took steps to save the North Sea cod fishery.

And this from the RSPB

Proposals for the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) unveiled today are a let down for wildlife friendly farmers.

That’s the message from the RSPB and farmers who are doing their bit to create space for nature in our countryside.

The European Commission today released full details of its plans for a reformed CAP. The new policy would mean less support for targeted environmental measures on farms and is bad news for farmers working on the most wildlife-rich land in Europe.

I'm sure that without looking too much further I could find half a dozen other examples where leading wildlife or environmental organisations criticize EU policies for creating problems. If TTIP was to go ahead, then you can kiss goodbye to all your environmental protection policies, because TTIP puts profit for big business before anything else.

For me the TTIP and these kind of secret deals is my number one reason for leaning towards a leave vote. The EU clearly isn't capable of reform, certainly not in any reasonable timeframe and can't be trusted not to bow down to the pressures of big business.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Nailed it there John. And because brexit own the meeja, those who believe they are "sticking it to the man" are in fact handing it to the man, gift wrapped.

In reply to Phil Payne:

The CAP vs wildlife protection is of course a balance, and I'd agree that at the moment the balance is too much in favour of the farmer / subsidising cheap food, and not enough in favour of wildlife. But I think, given the attitude this government shows towards wildlife and the environment, that we would be much much worse off without the habitats directive and the birds directive.

Protecting the environment and wildlife has to be done at a larger than national level, and the current government, many of whom have personal links to grouse farms and the fox hunting community, and generally show a disdain for anything which could hamper their chum's sporting or business interests, would not show as much regard for nature as the EU does.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well we elect a few MEPs to the meaningless talking shop of an EU parliament but we don't elect the people who actually hold the power.

In reply to pec:

Well said MR. Pec.

In reply to pec:


Nobody with legislative power in the EU is unelected. As opposed to the UK where we have 825 of them.
As for executive power, it is split between the EU council, which we elect and the EC, nominated by the EU council, and approved by the parliament, which we elect.

In reply to Phil Payne:

So, would ANY of this be better outside Europe?
I suspect UK would fail on all these issues by an even bigger margin.

TIPP: perhaps staying in Europe is the best way to avoid this monster.....can you imagine the French (for example) signing up to this (whereas there seems to be quite a lot of enthusiasm in Whitehall, and on our own we'll be vulnerable and easily picked off).

In reply to RyanOsborne:

I agree that we are largely better off with EU policies, but my point is about how it's almost impossible to get the bad bits of them changed. There is no willingness for reform, so keeping bleeting on about changing things from the inside is just nonsense, especially when it's not in the interests of our land owning, grouse shooting and fox hunting MPs who represent us at the European table.

Around Europe, not just in the UK, people have become disenfranchised by politics because of the constant scandal after scandal of the self serving political elite. For many people that will vote to leave it won't be because of immigration or sovereignty but as a chance to create real and necessary political change that will be brought about by an exit vote. It's a chance to stick 2 fingers up to the establishment and tell them that we've had enough and want something different. That's democracy in action.

Unfortunately whether we vote in or out, we'll still be stuck with the same incompetence of our current generation of politicians running the Uk into the ground, where making a choice between different political parties is like having to choose between shooting yourself in your left foot or your right foot. At least if there is a leave vote we'll have our 10 minutes of celebration that we stuck it to the man using our democratic right to vote, before the reality hits home that we didn't really achieve anything.

Stay or go, does anyone really see anything improving in the medium to long term after the obvious downturn in the immediate aftermath of an out vote?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well said to the OP. To the accusation that you've let the scaremongering take hold, I say, that's because there's a shedload of bad stuff waiting for Brexit. Downgraded credit rating =higher interest rates. No trade agreements = undefinable potential for protectionism, punitive tariffs and obstruction.
We are an aging nation - we actually NEED migrants, to pay taxes to pay for the NHS and pensions, as well as to staff the NHS. Re lack of control of borders, that will be worse outside the eu.
And you can rest assured that the Bosses' Brexit will lead to an immediate large bonfire of h&s, employment rights, benefits and environmental regulation.

The stay campaign has been lamentable and the "balance" of exposure tilted well towards leave - so yes, I bet Murdoch wants us out. Do what Murdoch tells you, citizens!

In reply to HardenClimber:

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. We've seen though, over the years, that there just isn't the political will to reform some of the rubbish EU policies, so saying that remaining in will mean that we can suddenly make all these changes happen is a bit silly.

Leaving a least guarantees you a chance of change, but whether that change is for better or worse is the tougher question to answer.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


I don't understand these sentiments. They sound nice but seem to ignore the reality of the modern globalised world.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


What are those risks? How will the UK decide it's own future in a globalised world?

In reply to Phil Payne:



Comments like these are best left to the politicians. The fact is that all EU countries fail to comply with EU environmental legislation from time to time - the UK was referred to the EU Court of Justice twice last year for breaking environmental regulations. Here's some information that you or others might find useful on environmental transgressions in the EU and what happens next.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/press_en.htm

Personally I'm glad that a supra-national body can take my government to court when it fails to comply, for example, with the law on power station emissions, but opinions differ.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes they are, the council of ministers is not directly elected by the people of europe.


The Lords cannot ever overule the Commons which always has the upper hand in law. Anyway, a flawed system at home (which is within our powers to change should we wish) is no justifaction for another flawed system imposed on us from outside which we have no power to change.


We do not elect the European council and we do not elect the commission, our parliament has a small say in them but this is the system which resulted in the election of an EU president that nobody actually wanted.

In reply to Wicamoi:

I actually have had a look at that site to see if Britain was doing any better than other European nations and it would appear not when looking at that list. But that list is just about lawyers getting rich off of the back of the state and not achieving anything. How many millions were wasted on these cases that ended up going nowhere or by years and years of inaction by the states taken to court by the EU.

What I was talking about was real life observation in various European countries where environmental protection laws simply weren't being enforced by the state. I think in the UK we take it more seriously and have a greater chance of more robust environmental protection policy, particularly if we were to vote for a political party with more green leaning tendancies.

Whilst writing my reply I have had another look through the list and the EC website to try to find statistics for successful prosecutions resulting in fines for member states that were actually paid by the member state. After nearly 30 mins of reading dozens of reports and dozens of failed searches to find a page that might give me an overview of successful prosecutions, I gave up having not found any.

Looks like it's just another way in which the EU wastes money.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>....... A recognition that admission to our exclusive club depends upon certain inalienable human rights, so sorry, Turkey, make your call - you can't become Islamic AND join the EU - you choose.

WTF does that mean?

Are you suggesting countries could only be admitted based on religion?

While I agree that human rights should be high on the list, countries don't have to be less "Islamic" to achieve this.

Russia aren't very "Islamic" but I wouldn't want to see them joining.

In reply to krikoman:

You must be aware that Turkey is currently regressing away from the secular state envisaged by Ataturk to a more Islamic state after the Saudi/Iran/Pakistan models. That is explicitly not compatible with membership of the EU.

In reply to Phil Payne:



I've barely seen any effort on the part of Westminster to initiate reform on any "rubbish EU policies", of course apart from the last minute dash by Cameron to get sticky plaster changes agreed once he'd gambled on a referendum. In truth I don't think there's political will in the UK for major EU reform simply because Britain is doing pretty well as it stands now. Certainly there are things that would be best reformed - such as the ludicrous Strasbourg situation - but by and large the UK establishment seems pretty happy with the status quo. The only real problem is that they've simultaneously been blaming Europe when anything isn't perfect, so while the government is broadly happy with the EU as it stands, the excuses fed to the media to cover up poor domestic government planning on such things as infrastructure and NHS seem to have been swallowed and believed by many of the people. Boris wouldn't agree though as it would ruin his chance of gaining the power he seems to crave and he's put his money on Murdoch's horse.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Wouldn't it be easier to say less democratic countries with piss poor human rights and civil liberties?

An Islamic state means nothing, unless you qualify it, as you did with examples such as Saudi/Iran/Pakistan.

In reply to pec:


It's tempting to believe that - after all, we've had 70 years of peace in our little corner of the world, but the history of Europe and the human race generally suggests we should be very cautious about taking peace for granted. As just one example, pre-EU we had the Cod Wars which had the potential to escalate - who can say something similar won't happen involving other EU nations if we withdraw from EU fishing agreements now?

As an aside, the the Cod Wars led to the biggest reduction of the British fishing fleet due to NATO concerns - something else that seems to get wrongly blamed on the EU these days.

In reply to Trevers:
To JCM, Trev, NickB - you just don't get it do you?!
Of course we talk to our neighbours, of course we live in a real modern globalised world.
It is all about control - we have to control our own democracy, business, legal framework, trade and our own decisions rather than being controlled by unaccountable people elsewhere. We may still come to the same agreements, but we do it on our terms - not theirs.
Because we have our own motives, and they have motives that in part may not suit us - which is why we are having a referendum in the first place, and the momentum is with the leavers.
Remainists generally have their noses in the trough or are champagne socialist idealists who do not live in the real world of work, business and wealth creation.
Leavers are free spirits.
Either UK decides its future in a global market, or the EU does.

You don't need to be in a club to go climbing.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Is this the "real world" where you ignore the overwhelming evidence that suggests something is a bad idea, and do it anyway?


No, but it's a lot riskier to go soloing than to have a belay partner.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


But being in a club gets me BMC membership, access to a hut in Snowdonia, a wider group of people to call up to organise outings with etc etc.


Bollocks


More bollocks

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


How depressing.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

This is somewhat simplistic. To trade with the EU we will have to comply with EU trading standards - so we will still be under EU control at some level. We will also have to pay some kind of tariff to trade in the EU - as do Norway and Switzerland.

The phrase "our terms - not theirs." is also fraught. There is no 'their laws'. We make those laws as well so they are 'our terms'. The problems for Norway and Switzerland is that they do have to follow 'their laws' (the EU), as they have no say.


Wealth creation is a function of economics not business. Business redistributes wealth.

More importantly, as the crash of 2008 has shown us, we can easily be knocked very badly by events outside of our control. Austerity has hit the UK hard, and the roots of it - bailing out the banks because of over-leveraging - originated in the US. Think about that. Contagion of an American problem has caused closure of Libraries, local services, cuts at every level and economic contraction in general. This contagion from the US has shaped our whole economy down to government policy for nearly a decade with more to come.

Brexiters live in a fantasy Middle England from an Ealing comedy where on the one hand "we waz prowd and respected and ruled the world" and on the other, the vicar cycles past as the whistling postie gives the baker a friendly smile. It is like the Italians longing for the return of the Roman Empire and as laughable.

In reply to BarrySW19:
I think that is exactly right. Just about everyone in the UK was born after the last war ended, so extrapolates from their experience that 'it hasn't happened here in my lifetime, so it won't in the future..'

That's what they thought in Yugoslavia in the 1970s; that's what they thought in Rwanda; that's what they thought in Syria; that's what they thought in the Ukraine.

Europe is surrounded by danger - Russia to the East, seriously unstable states to the south. Now is not a good time to be falling out with our neighbours.

Scared? For my children and grandchildren, yes I am.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Free to do Murdoch's bidding.

In reply to BarrySW19:
The whole 'fishing will be better if we're out' is a load of rubbish - French, Belgian, Dutch & German boats are all allowed as close in as 6 miles due to a treaty signed in 1951 - leaving the EU won't change that. Our own long distance fleet will likely be trapped in our own waters, and overfish those. The existence of Spanish and Dutch 'flag vessels' won't change if we leave the EU either, they could be outlawed now but the government chooses not to do so. The UK won't introduce conservation measures unless the EU does because that would 'disadvantage' the UK fleet.
In general, fishermen tend to not be particularly smart or well-educated and hate all rules and regulations. They don't look any further than their codend and have a very short-term view of fisheries management.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:



Are you really suggesting the workers rights would be as good if not better if we'd been outside of the EU for the last 40 years?


Are you just making this up, or are you mad? you only have to look at the number of companies looking to stay BMW for one to realise they aren't champagne socialists or devoid of any business / wealth creation nounce FFS.


Leavers are giving ALL the power to the government who happens to win the next election, that might well be Boris!


There might not be a future if we leave.


No that's true, but I get a lot more from my club than I can get on my own.

One of the best quotes I've heard recently ( paraphrasing ). We won't get anywhere until the working class stops reading right wing newspapers. How anyone can think agreeing with Rupert Murdoch will be good for us, make me want to weep.

In reply to Phil Payne:

Clearly the EU could do better but it has fought & won a few battles, look at the history of the Rospuda Valley (e.g. http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sowb/casestudy/25 - & I know its an environmental NGO) or closer to home the role of the EU in stopping the destruction of Duich Moss on Islay. And that's just high profile cases, many other potentially damaging projects have been stopped/barely started due to various directives. Also improvements to water & air quality

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

There is no compelling reason to remain but the fact that it's a gravy train for hypocritical champagne socialists who do not like democracy, governance and accountability e.g. the Kinnock dynasty is a damn good reason to leave.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Any more bullshit over there?

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


I'm not sure what I don't get and you haven't told me. I have asked you two simple questions, you haven't answered one at all and you have answered the other in the most woolly terms possible.

What are the risks? How do we as a country take control in a globalised world?

In reply to Trevers:

Which part is bullshit please explain? Or is that the limited extent of your argument?

In reply to GridNorth:


And return to a monarchy with a non elected second house, a FPTP elected government and an entrenched class system. That seems like a good trade.

In reply to GrahamD:

Where did I say that. I do wish people could read. Please do not put words into my mouth. I agree that the Monarchy and the House of Lords are undemocratic but that's not a good enough reason to hand over sovereignty to a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats on massive expense accounts funded by the tax payer.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Does anybody actually believe (I know it's constantly spouted on here) that people 'do Murdoch's bidding?'

In reply to GridNorth:


It's certainly not, but we haven't.

In reply to Siward:


According to him, Dave and chums to his bidding. From an Evening Standard journo I believe:

I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.

In reply to rogerwebb:

You are quite right but we have let it happen would be a better way of expressing it. And on that we will probably have to agree to disagree.

In reply to GridNorth:


Well it's quite clear that you've certainly strongly considered all the pros and cons before reaching a decision

In reply to RyanOsborne:

Number 10 might, but the general population? I don't think he's as influential as is often feared.

In reply to Trevers:

That just happens to be one of the ones I've considered and responded to in the context of one post. So I will ask again which part is bullshit?

In reply to GrahamD:


Great response!

"Before Brexit looked like a real possibility, the Centre for Economics and Business Research predicted that the British economy would overtake Germany’s as the largest in Europe by the 2030s.

Its population is set to rise above 70m by 2030, while Germany’s is likely to shrink. The British population will also be younger.

A separate report by HSBC predicts that by 2050 the total number of working people in the UK will increase by 5-10%, while Germany’s working population will shrink by a massive 29%. There will be more workers in Britain adding to its growing economy.

If these predictions come true, the European power map would look significantly different."

https://theconversation.com/britain-could-become-a-global-superpower-if-it-...

In reply to GridNorth:

Yes, no point in recycling the same arguments

In reply to GridNorth:


Apart from the fact that 'sovereignty' hasn't been handed over, it sounds like a good reason to push for reform on the transparency within Europe and maybe we should consider making a bit more effort on who we elect as our MEPs. Just because there are people with their noses in the trough doesn't make Europe any more undemocratic than our own system with its myriad of expenses scandals in our own parliament.

In reply to Shani:
No it's a bollocks response (the response was to me) because I never said I was in favour of those things.

I will readily admit that my knowledge of how the EU system works is poor but I am not alone in that and that itself is part of the problem. Please enlighten me; I do not like what Cameron and Osborne have been doing over the last few years so I will not vote Conservative next time. I also do not like what Tusk, Rutte, Juncker and Schulz have been doing. How do I express my concerns about that and would it make any difference?

In reply to pec:


They can and have done recently: see the case of the Welfare bill last year. It's is simply convention that dictates that the Lords don't overule the commons, but this isn't enshrined in law.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


And Leavers do? Most of the economic arguments are weighed in favour of remaining. How much weight will UK have in negotiating agreements with the US and China? With the EU?? (45% of UK exports go to the EU while we only take about 8% of theirs) and the EU are hardly going to encourage other leavers by giving the UK any sort of decent agreement. We will not regain control of business & trade by leaving.


Cr&p: a lot of the talk that I see from the leavers is 'we don't want immigrants over here'. Whatever the rights & wrongs of that, that is not the opinion of a free spirit. Leavers seem more about entrenching and building walls.

In reply to GridNorth:

But we don't, we share it, just like we do by being members of NATO, the UN and endless treaties & agreements, or do you want to withdraw from all of those as well ?

>...to a bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats

MEPs are elected, the Commission are nominated by elected governments and the Council is made up of members of those governments. The only bureaucrats are the Commission staff, the EU civil service - how often have you voted for members of the British civil service ?
But I suspect you know that and are just ranting away

In reply to Siward:


I can only hope you're right.

In reply to Doug:

Just because someone disagrees with our point of view it's a churlish to accuse them of "ranting", that's getting a little personal. There is a fundamental difference as far as I can see. Civil Servants carry out the instructions of Parliament, if I do not agree with what parliament is proposing, which is after all published, I have a direct means of expressing my displeasure, the ballot box. In the EU it is the Commission who dictate the policy and the MEP's rubber stamp it but I'm not aware of any manifesto type statement which is why the first time many of us get to hear about anything is afetr the event. Perhaps rather than saying the EU is totally undemocratic it would be fairer to say it is convoluted and complex. I prefer the ballot box direct relationship with the Parliament, even with it's flaws.

In reply to Phil Payne:


Well that's too bad then - we (NZ and Australia) are getting the southern hemisphere of the deal (TPPA), and our public has had even less information than the one here has. The backroom deals are nothing to do with the EU, but with moral corruption.

In reply to Doug:


And similarly, I hand over some of my personal independence to the local council, and more to Westminster. And I don't have a problem with that, or with handing over some of it on to Europe rather than Westminster, because I think that some things - many of them big, important things like environmental protection or human rights or employment rights - work out better for everyone if they're handled by representatives of a large number of people working in the collective interests of all of those people rather than by individuals or small groups constantly looking over their shoulders and trying to get one up on their neighbours.

In reply to Siward:


My fear is that that isn't correct. For example, do you think Murdoch would allow a lead editor of the Sun or the Times that would take a different political position to that which he believes in? The Sun has been peddling anti-EU nonsense for years. Whether we like it or not, a lot of people will believe what is written (even if it is subsequently proven to be untrue).

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


Well I've voted already, so this is all irrelevant to me.
But probably the most compelling argument I have seen is that both David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn (champagne socialist etc.????) agree on staying in. If those two persons who are at about as far apart on the political spectrum as is possible, agree on a single issue - there must be something in it.

In reply to BarrySW19:

That has been my reason for wanting to remain united.

As just one example, pre-EU we had the Cod Wars which had the potential to escalate - who can say something similar won't happen involving other EU nations if we withdraw from EU fishing agreements now?

Thought you misspelled Cold War... Had never heard of the Cod wars before.

In reply to Flinticus:

I wonder how many of this kind of Brexiter loved "Auf Weidersen Pet"?

In reply to SenzuBean:
I thought that the 70 years of peace was because of Nato. Withdrawing from the EU won't affect that will it?

I could be wrong on this but weren't the Cod wars to do with Icelandic fishing waters, not UK waters? Did it really decimate the UK fishing fleets? I was under the impression that the Fishermen themselves put that down to EU quotas.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Could be, could also not be. It's not a black and white, there is no way we can predict what chain of events an action will have. But in general the further we move away from unity and co-operation, the less able we are to prevent war both externally and within. War these days is also not just boots on the ground, but economic warfare as well (IMO why the rouble has tumbled).


"As a result, British fishing communities lost access to rich areas and were devastated, with thousands of jobs lost."
Did do a bit of decimation - but maybe they weren't our waters to begin with. Don't really know - not central to the point at hand.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Well it is central to the point if it was EU quotas and not NATO that decimated the UK fishing fleet. I don't know, but the fishermen seem to think it was the fault of the EU so that is very relevant.

In reply to GridNorth:


Your original post was flippant ("No compelling reasons to Remain", "Champagne Socialists") so I called bullshit.

If you have considered arguments both ways and decided that on the face of it, we're better off out, then I'll disagree but I can respect that.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

This quote sums it up for me:

" Leaving would cause business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems that have nothing to do with Europe"

As quoted by Boris Johnson in Feb 2016.

Class act

In reply to GridNorth:
The UK lost access to Icelandic waters when Iceland declared & policed a 50 then a 200 nautical mile Economic Exclusion Zone leading to the Cod Wars, this was before we joined the EEC and did result in job loses in the UK fishing industry. The quotas etc associated with the Common Fishery Policy came a little later but the story is quite complex as overfishing had been going on for many decades so a collapse in the industry would have happened anyway, although maybe not so large or so rapid - we'll never know. Further complicated by UK quota/boats being sold to overseas buyers.

In reply to Trevers:

I didn't mean to be flippant, well perhaps a little . I am as yet undecided but I do still believe in the sentiment of my post. So which part do you object to? That the Kinnocks are socialists? They have a very good life style (hence the Champagne)? or that they are funded by the tax payer?

In reply to neilh:

This whole referendum circus has diverted the populace's attention from the housing crisis, the NHS, the plight of doctors, the wage gap, those silly submarines and nuclear warheads, TTIP, the school/academy thing, the fact that summer was cancelled for this year and just about everything else that actually matters.

Oh... maybe that was precisely the point.

In reply to Doug:

Thank you, that's more or less in line with what I remember. I was however responding to a post that suggested that NATO was to blame for the demise of the fishing industry because of the Cod wars and not the EU. IMO it was more to do with the latter than the former, although I have no idea to what degree so I was really questioning the premise because that is how it was presented i.e as a fact to support remain. I think between us we have squashed that one even though I'm sure that was not your intent

In reply to neilh:




You can accuse Boris Johnson of many things, but having any integrity is not one of them.

The original quote was from here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145593/Voters-hav...

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

A survey by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) found 80% of members for Remain, with only 5% for Leave. In response to claims that it represents only big companies, the CBI points out that it speaks for 190,000 members, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, and that 71% of SMEs want to stay. The Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce, with memberships that have a higher share of SMEs than the CBI, find most in favour. Even a majority of the Federation of Small Businesses narrowly backs Remain.

Fully 77% of SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) members favour Remain, not just because future investment depends on access to the single market but also to retain influence over the industry’s regulation.

Specialist trade associations report similar results. TechUK, an IT group, finds 70% for staying in the EU. The EEF manufacturers’ association has 61% (about 6% Leave). A survey this week by the UK arm of the International Chamber of Commerce found 86% of international businesses supporting Remain. Groups as diverse as Universities UK, the Food and Drink Federation and the aerospace and defence association also report large support for Remain.

Sorry to pick on this again but when I say this I had to do a double take.

Are all your points so well backed up as this one or I have I just picked the one with no real foundation?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I agree with much of what you are saying.

Please correct me if I am wrong (I probably am), but Europe pretty much stood by and shook the finger at Russia while they annexed Crimea, I also thought in certain parts of Ukraine masked Russian special forces are running around causing trouble.

In reply to Doug:
I also seem to remember that when the quotas were introduced a number of huge Spanish vessels entered what were previously UK waters and more or less took over.

I've never known a time when so many socialists have stood up for so many capitalists

This referendum is creating some strange bedfellows and I still can't make my mind up which is why I am, at times, playing devils advocate to try and draw some real facts out.

In reply to GridNorth:


Accoring to Michael Crick "Farage friend says he's been approached by Boris camp about job in Johnson govt & place in Lords to avoid fighting possible Thanet by-elect"

Go figure.

In reply to GridNorth:

Or indeed so many capitalists standing up for socialists.

Which is one of my main reasons for staying in, I see the EU Parliament as a place where they vote for the people and our Parliament where they vote for what they can get out of it.

It's very difficult for me to vote with David Cameron, but I'm certain we're doing it for different reasons. I happen to think the laws we're governed by from Brussels are more social-ist (note the small "s") than our own laws. I also, don't like the notion that coming out would give our government free reign on all out laws, environmental, social, and working.


But it's not just Cameron either, it's any other future government, doing what they like.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Another issue would be if we come out, Cameron resigns or is pushed out, we're left with Boris in charge!!

In reply to GridNorth:


Have a you had a look at the vote leave camp ? They are more neoliberal than all the Eurocrats combined.

In reply to pec:


What do you actually mean by this? Do you know how the co-decision procedure is?

In reply to RyanOsborne:
That is the quote that I had in mind but didn't know where it was from.

In reply to Siward:

Murdoch has been widely credited with delivering a fair few elections, including 1997 for Nu Labour, so yes lots of people know the power of an unelected Australian born American citizen who is not domiciled here.

Just like many know the power of the other press barons, the majority of which are non doms.

In reply to GridNorth:


To be fair, what decimated the UK fishing fleet was the lack of fish. If it weren't for the EU quotas system it is likely European waters would have experienced a Grand Banks style collapse by now.

In reply to BarrySW19:

But that could have been because of the huge Spanish trawlers that moved in couldn't it?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Here is an "old" (is 3 years really old?) - that to me epitomizes the environmental benefits from being in the EU:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21740745

Compare that with the deregulation of the factory farming animals proposed by the gov recently:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/animal-welfare-deregul...

It's not hard to see how animal welfare concerns would likely be compromised with an exit of the EU.

In reply to Shani:



And therein lies the real reason why Merkel wants Turkey to join the EU. Lots of Turkish economic refugees head off to Germany and give the ailing population a major boost.

It's a fait accompli no matter the official line being spouted by Cameron and Osborne. Turkey will join and Germany will be the one to benefit.

In reply to Gone for good:



Only if ALL the other 27 countries agree. Can't see it happening.

In reply to Gone for good:

Both Germany and France have to have their own referendums no vote on whether to say yes or no to Turkish acceptance. It's not Merkels decision.

In reply to neilh:
EU wide opinion polls
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-brexit/

And older but more detailed results
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/12/a-fragile-rebound-for-eu-image-on-eve-o...


Euroskepticism isn't limited to the uk and on some questions the uk is towards the europhile end of the spectrum of opinions.
There doesn't seem to be any country where a majority want more powers for eu so 'ever closer union' seems to be a fantasy. It's not going to happen.
The same applies to Turkey.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Indeed, and that includes Cyprus. Good luck with that.

In reply to Phil Payne:




Hi Phil

I think from what you say above that you have the wrong idea about the EU Court of Justice: its purpose is not to fine miscreants (although that is an available option), because what good would it do to fine a government for illegal power station emissions (which the UK was referred to the Court for last year)? That would only leave the people of the UK poorer and still suffering illegal emissions. No, the Court of Justice is much more mature than that. Its purpose is not to prosecute member states but to ensure that they comply with EU law. There are several to-and-froings between the Court and member state in the referral process, and if the member state satisfies the Court with its response, then no fine is necessary (but remains as a motivating possibility in the process).

So the fact that you see lots of referrals to the EU Court of Justice but don't find much evidence of fines is not, as you imagined, evidence of the EU wasting money, but rather evidence of a mature jurisprudence system, which, for example in the case I alluded to - is defending the citizens of the UK (and other member states) from pollution which the UK's government was tolerating.

Might I respectfully suggest that your willingness to see the worst in the EU in this instance (where I think I have demonstrated that you were wrong to do so) may also have been mistakenly applied elsewhere?

Incidentally, the members of the Court are appointed by the elected representatives of the member states - democracy in action....not too late to change your mind!

In reply to Phil Payne:
Of course I'd like the EU to do more to set lower fishing quotas, etc. Bu it can only do what it politically can. Without it nothing collective can be done at all; that's the point. Nigel's merry band on the Thames today will be back overfishing in no time if he gets his way. (we all saw Greenpeace's release about the fishing company which own the lead boat, btw? - trawlermen trying to protect their livelihoods, my arse)

jcm

In reply to Toerag:


Written in stone* was it?





*© E. Milliband.

In reply to Big Ger:



How do we (the UK, not those in Australia) change what we (again, the UK not Australia) signed up to?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Yes, they landed and sold dead fish, fish which would have had to been thrown back into the seas otherwise.

Still, throwing dead fish back is a great way of conserving stocks.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The same way we negotiated the original treaty, your question is rather daft.

Mind you, you get extra points for the infantile "in Australia" jibe, does that make you feel all warm inside.

In reply to Big Ger:


So are we (the UK, not Australia) going to declare a no fishing zone? Is that the plan? What boundary are "we" declaring?

In reply to Phil Payne:

>Stay or go, does anyone really see anything improving in the medium to long term after the obvious downturn in the immediate aftermath of an out vote?

Of course. The economy will gradually recover from the shock of the banking crisis; sooner or later Labour will turn to someone electable, the Middle East cycle will return to nearer stability, etc. It felt just like this in 1983.

The one thing that won't happen is a return to some golden age, which is what a lot of leavers seem to me to be fantasising about. Globalisation isn't going to stop, banking isn't going to stop, the emerging economies are going to compete with ours more and more fiercely, etc. We can embrace that, or we can pretend it's not happening. The latter won't work.

The other thing that really won't go away, as I see it, is that sooner or later we're going to have to accept that there are never going to be as many of what one might call blue-collar typically male jobs as there are people who'd like them, because we have machines to do a lot of that stuff. The Luddites were right, in fact. If we don't find some way of changing the economic set-up and the way we measure our self-worth to deal with this problem, it's going to cause a lot of trouble. I think the present nonsense is part of that trouble.

jcm

In reply to Sir Chasm:
No, (and without descending to your level of infantile posting,) unlike you some have a broader perspective and are open to reasonable negotiation.

In reply to Big Ger:


So put down the xxxx and tell me your plan for fishing post brexit, you must have a plan, surely?

In reply to Big Ger:

Ah, post your edit, you're planning on us (the UK, not Australia) having a 200 mile exclusion zone? That's interesting.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

>> So... either vote for the certainty that we remain, and can incrementally things on... or thow everything up in the air and hope for the best. And why WOULDN'T you trust, ahem, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith and Nigel Farrage?


I'm not sure - I think when you have a group of Harrow and Eton educated elites from the right wing of the Tory party suddenly undergoing a Damascene conversion and deciding they care about nothing so much as liberating money from the EU to put into the NHS - the same NHS they've spent their careers up until now trying to dismantle - then I think it's legitimate to ask questions about whether they are really being completely honest with us.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


More childishness, no wonder the "Remain" team are losing votes had over fist.

Get someone to explain what;


means.

In reply to GridNorth:




There was no fish!

They could have as big a f*cking quota as they wanted but there were NO FISH. I've spent weeks on trawlers in much of the Northern European shelf seas, around the UK the seabed is smashed to smithereens from constant trawling.

it really was that simple. Quotas had to be drastically cut to allow stocks to rebound, which they have done, unsurprisingly fisherman weren't happy.

In reply to Big Ger:



Which is now banned, well the Demersal fish dicard ban kicks in soon, pelagic has been in for a while.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

They're working on it;


http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-eu-fishing-methods-reduce-by...

In reply to Big

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/landing-obligation/index_en...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Yep, as I said, they're working on it.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Yeah, it's quite sad really that there is such negativity towards the EU fishing policy when it's actually been such a great success. European waters were heading for a Grand Banks style collapse. Without the EU quota system all we'd have left now is jellyfish.

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

In reply to Roadrunner5:

If there were no fish what attracted the large Spanish trawlers then? Genuine question not an argument.

In reply to GridNorth:


Well, there were fish - that's the thing, there are fish to be caught right up to the point that suddenly there aren't any more - read the link I posted above which details how the NW Atlantic fishery stocks collapsed nearly 25 years ago and has still not recovered. The point there is that reasonable levels of fish were being caught even up to a couple of years before the collapse.

The point is that regulation needs to get ahead of the curve in order to manage stocks whilst they are still in a healthy state - by the time serious declines are apparent it's already far too late.

In reply to pec:


The stated construct would suggest otherwise:

European Commission
'There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state. One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament.'

Council of the European Union
'In the Council, government ministers from each EU country meet to discuss, amend and adopt laws, and coordinate policies. The ministers have the authority to commit their governments to the actions agreed on in the meetings.'

European Parliament
'751 MEPs are elected to the European Parliament, which has been directly elected since 1979.'

On the Commission which many think holds the power and questions its accountability:
The Commission has the right of initiative to propose laws for adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU (national ministers). In most cases, the Commission makes proposals to meet its obligations under the EU treaties, or because another EU institution, country or stakeholder* has asked it to act. From April 2012, EU citizens may also call on the Commission to propose laws (European Citizens’ Initiative). (me: Nice but scary!)
Before making proposals, the Commission consults widely so that stakeholders' views can be taken into account. In general, an assessment of the potential economic, social and environmental impact of a given piece of legislation act is published along with the proposal itself.
The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality mean that the EU may legislate only where action is more effective at EU level than at national, regional or local level, and then no more than necessary to attain the agreed objectives.
Once EU legislation has been adopted, the Commission ensures that it is correctly applied by the EU member countries.

For me, and its only my opinion, the structure is entirely democratic as far as 'clubs' go with each member getting a vote. Indeed, if you look deeper into it one sees that different Countries get different numbers of votes and the UK along with Germany and France, and a few others, get more votes than many of the other member states, from what I can gather, to properly reflect our population sizes and financial contribution to the club.

*There is though, one glaringly obvious word in the above that opens up the EU to unelected lobbying, pressure and influence: 'stakeholders'. A nasty little word that allows the big corporations and banks to not only be consulted on legislation (which in some cases seems wholly reasonable) but also propose legislation, obviously for their own gain! Hence TTIP. It does rest however with the Council and Parliament to vote on the tabled legislation and that of course is open to lobbying and pressure on a National Political level, so there is accountability but that whole process is open to commercial influence.

The system is there to work, it just needs a few tweaks and that word 'stakeholder' taken out. Obviously there could be 'good' stakeholders such as the WWF or the European Federation of Straight Bananas who would like some form of EU-wide legislation considered and they should have a channel to make such a submission but I suspect a better way would be in the first instance through their MEP (perhaps one per member state that is nominated for non-political interest group proposals). This would make business and interest groups accountable through an elected Minister which of course should make them think just a little harder because he or she is elected and accountable.

Anyway, I'm a Remain because I would like to see what seems to me to be a good idea on many more levels than it is a bad one, improved.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I only wish the Likes to Dislikes ratio in my OP was reflected in the opinion polls ... it's looking a bit grim at the moment.

In reply to BarrySW19:

So why didn't the regulation apply to the Spanish? If I recall they were fishing freely, indeed on a much larger scale, whilst smaller UK trawlers were not allowed.

In reply to GridNorth:
British fishermen have long complained about illegal Spanish fishing, and a lack of policing of such matters.


https://www.icij.org/project/looting-seas-ii/impact-fishing-industry-rep-ca...

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The compelling reason to remain is that Brain Blessed is voting Remain. That's all you need to know.

In reply to Big Ger:


EU working well there then This is another one of the ticks in the "out" box. I have no evidence but you do seem to hear a lot about other EU countries ignoring rules if they do not like them but the UK playing it by the book. If this is indeed true that would disadvantage the UK IMO.

In reply to lummox:

The way I heard it, he's actually voting REMAIN

In reply to skog:

whilst jumping up and down on Farage and BoJo..

In reply to Big Ger:




Why don't you explain what you mean? You brought up the potential for a 200 mile exclusion zone, but if that's not what you're thinking of the perhaps you could expand on what you do want post brexit.

In reply to Big Ger:
I've been boarded by fisheries vessels, othe policing is very common, we have vessels out there.

I really don't think it happens that much, we have traceability now so every Gaul is GPS tagged.

If British fisherman sold their quota that's not illegal.

In reply to GridNorth:


If.

In reply to GridNorth:

Do you think fishing is best managed and policed at international level or national level ? (National level and Cod Wars again, the Navy would love that !).

If they *really* aren't currently being effectively policed then surely the way to improve it is through Europe or are you looking at a vigilante approach. But lack of policing is usually down to lack of budget at whatever level its done.

In reply to GrahamD:

I want it done at a level where, if I disagree with the persons making the decision, I can demonstrate my discontent directly at the ballot box. If Cameron says something and enough of the electorate disagrees he will be out. I don't think that applies with Juncker, Shulz etc.

In reply to lummox:

and Bob the Saviour Geldof!

In reply to cragtaff:

Run along now and knock one off over your picture of Farage, there's a good chap.

In reply to GridNorth:


But that isn't how it works is it, if you live in a conservative stronghold, he could put his cock in a pigs mouth and I still couldn't vote him out. ..



Wait a minute!!!

In reply to Big Ger:


And just how would we police this if we were out?

This is the one of the issues, that had me thinking out might be a good idea, but we don't have the resources to police it, and we'd end up selling the rights to the Spanish anyway, so we'd be no better off. Apart from we'd probably not be able to fish in their waters.

In reply to GridNorth:

You can't vote in or out the civil service. Nor would any sensible country want to have any long term strategy such as energy, or pollution to the ballot box.

In reply to GrahamD:

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. Every 4 or 5 years the parties present their manifestos, stating what they are or are not going to do. Whether they stick to this or not is another issue but they get in or not broadly based on this manifesto. Every individual expresses their agreement or disagreement by putting a cross in box. It's simple, it's straightforward and admittedly not perfect but it is understandable to the majority of the population. This is the type of democracy that I like. To say the EU is undemocratic may be overstating it but it would be difficult to argue that it is simpler. If many people do not understand the system, which I think is the case, this in itself makes it less democratic.

In reply to GrahamD:


Irrevelant as they are paid employees who have no decision making power.


Who should decide it then? You realise presumably that this is an anti democracy argument?

In reply to lummox:


Hmm, a boorish oaf in love with his own voice. Probably bottom of my list of people to be trapped in a lift with. Leave is becoming more attractive...

In reply to Ridge:

As opposed to Farage and BoJo ???

In reply to lummox:

Close call admittedly... Make that "in my list of worst three people"

In reply to thomasadixon:


Of course they have decision making power. That is why they are paid so much. Yes Minister was funny partly because it was so close to the truth.

In reply to GrahamD:

It would have been better to say anonymous and unaccountable.

In reply to GridNorth:

They are accountable. Just not directly accountable to you or I.

In reply to GrahamD:


You're citing a comedy program? It was funny as a parody but it's only TV. Do you really think the Thatcher government didn't make the decisions herself? That the civil service decided to have a fight with the miners? I can't see it personally.

The other question is a real one, and the lack of answer reveals (imo, of course) a strong reason behind the EU itself. Fear of the common man being able to influence the decisions, and a wish to remove the ability of the common man to influence those rules/decisions. Hence the appeal of the EU, an organisation that has a technical claim to democracy (so we can keep our "values") but has moved the decision making to a place where it's no longer controlled by us (so doesn't take the risk that'll we'll screw it up by making "bad" decisions). It will keep us safe, it will protect our values because we are not capable of doing so ourselves. Strange really, given that it hands more power to the politicians that generally we don't trust because they tend towards corruption when unwatched.


The decision makers in China are accountable to someone too. It really does matter who they're accountable to, and it ought to be us.

In reply to Wicamoi:

No, I still think they are wasting money. Like you say, it's almost unheard of that a member state is fined for breaking the rules, so what incentive do they have to comply? The only people making money out of this are the lawyers who have a vested interest in dragging it through the courts for as long as possible.

Might I respectfully disagree that instead of demonstrating that I was wrong, you just reinforced my point.

In reply to Phil Payne:

But i have even less faith in a UK government applying sensible environmental controls, sustainable quota etc.. with the extensive media pressure and need to respond to headlines rather than scientific advice (as evidenced by badger culls, neonicotinoids, weekend mortality in the nhs or any sphere of science policy etc....). Furthermore our govt will never have the independent strength to negotiate sensibly to not get into or ever out of things like TTIP as the negotiations will be focussed on 5yr not long term outcomes. I dont see anything in your arguement that suggests leaving the EU will improve things, however it would change them, I'm sure.

And that is the crux of it. People seem to want change as they're not happy. But there is some magic assumption that leaving the eu will lead to change that will be positive. I suspect it won't.

In reply to Badgers:

I did go on to make the point that I think that a lot of people are fed up with the status quo and might consider voting to leave for no other reason than wanting to try to force a change even if it's for the worse, just as long as they get change.

I'm one of those people

In reply to ianstevens:


The commons may choose to give way to the Lords if it's politically expediant to do so but it can always overule the lords if it so wishes. It uses the parliament act to do so
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949#Provisions

In reply to pec:

The UK Parliamentary system may be flawed and in need of reform but the EU model, in it's current form, is not the one that should replace it.

In reply to pec:


They do not have legislative power.


That is not true, the EU institutions have not been imposed on us in any way. We ratified every single treaty. We have a big influence to change it, and we shaped it.


That is untrue. Junker is there because because his party has a majority in the EU parliament. I agree that he his the wrong man for the job. But that happens in any democracy including ours.

In reply to GridNorth:


They do not have have the same purpose in the first place.

In reply to RomTheBear:

If all that is true how have we ended up where we are, where it seems to me most people are uneasy, even pro Europeans, with the creeping encroachment of federalism.

In reply to pec:



And that's the worst of both worlds. Not only we have an unaccountable House of lords but on top of that it is now useless in providing any kind of checks and balances in an unwritten constitutional system that is very much an electoral dictatorship.

In reply to GridNorth:

There is no "creeping encroachment of federalism", the EU has been going in the opposite direction for the past decade.
We ended up where we are because of people we voted for in our own countries blaming every single problem on the EU, or EU immigrants, or both, mostly because it's easy and it works. It's called populism.

Where I am worried if what happen when we do brexit, and people realise their problems are still there or significantly worse. They are unlikely to regret their choice, instead they'll probably blame other countries even more, foreigners even more, and before you know it, we'll be back to the Europe of coercion and threats.
We are already there unfortunately, with some EU countries threatening to "punish" Britain if we leave, scaremongering about evil rapist Turks flooding Britain (Have you seen the official vote leave broadcast with animated arrows from Turkey landing on London with explosion sounds and all ?)

In reply to RomTheBear:
Looks like we've reached the point where we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your knowledgeable and courteous replies. Unfortunately I'm no further forward and feeling confused and nervous about this whole thing.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Get out on the hill this weekend and forget it until next week. It may seem clearer then.

Ultimately whichever way you vote you will do it after having done your best to be well informed. Therefore your choice will be the right one whichever way you vote.

(hope it's remain though)

In reply to rogerwebb:

Thank you, your posts have also been informative and courteous although unfortunately they have failed to convince me.

Al

In reply to Phil Payne:

Fair enough. It looks like your mind’s made-up, but I'll have one last go at explaining why I think you are mistaken.

In the first place, no lawyers have any interests in dragging out judgements. The Commission and the ECJ members have salaried fixed term appointments. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is not a really acting like a court judging a criminal for a crime against the established law, it is more a means for deciding what exactly the law is and how it must be applied in member states.

If the Commission believes a member state to be failing to comply with EU law or to fulfil treaty obligations, it confers with the member state informally. The member state has two options, either to change its law in line with the Commission’s suggestion, or to convince the Commission that its present law is not in conflict with EU regulations. If no agreement can be found the Commission raises a formal complaint, and the member state makes a formal written response. If the Commission is not satisfied with this, it states its full legal position. If the member state still fails to comply, the member state is referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The ECJ considers and then rules on the matter. If it finds in favour of the Commission, the member state must comply with the decision "without delay". If the Commission refers the member state to the ECJ a second time (ie if it considers the member state has not complied with the ECJ's decision without delay) and the ECJ agrees, then the member state will be fined.

So, I repeat, the scarcity of fines is not evidence that the system isn't working - the law is contested and judged and thereafter generally complied with. Only when member states deliberately flout properly established law is a fine necessary. And since France got stung for about 100 million euros ish for a fisheries infringement in the early days (2005), in most cases the member state does comply with the established law because it is in its interests to do so.

Would you really prefer it if the UK was fined for a disputed law before the nature of that law has been formally agreed? Surely that would be the action of an unaccountable super-bureaucracy, punishing the innocent taxpayers for crimes that their government was not even aware it was committing? But instead we have a democratically-appointed, open system in which the law is formally judged, and the member state then given the opportunity to comply. So, not really the stuff of Murdoch headlines.

In fact it was all rather boring, wasn’t it? Sorry about that. Unfortunately it seems that the EU usually turns out to be boring when looked at in detail – boringly sensible, measured and collegiate. Ho hum. And please bear in mind that the boringly sensible ECJ is all paid for out of the "about-half-of-350-million-a-week", so there's no need to double-account the expense in your mind.

Oh, and the ECJ will almost certainly force the UK to remove the permit the UK granted to a power plant to poison UK citizens in the Cardiff region with NOx at over twice the apparent legal limit. Hurrah for the Commission and the ECJ – defending the people of the UK from their own government! Something else you won’t read in Murdoch’s press.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Which is why I an inny.

It's pretty sad that I'm afraid of what my government will do to my standard of living, but there you have it in a nutshell.

In reply to Phil Payne:


I'm sorry but that is just not the case, an ECJ action ending in a fine may be rare in terms of the number of cases but it is not uncommon.

Here is an example, there are many more.
http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/european-court-fines-france-o...

57.8million Euro every 6 months is quite a big incentive.

In reply to rogerwebb:

Hi Roger - I liked your other thread.

Yes, fines of member states exist, but it is good that they are rare, because encouraging democratic compliance with the law is so much more productive than fining non-compliance. There is a large contrast with the ECJ and businesses. In contrast to the situation with national governments, it is often strongly in the interests of businesses to flout the law for profit. Accordingly, since 1990 the ECJ has fined businesses some 20 billion euros.

The European Court of Justice - defending EU citizens from exploitation in a country near you.

In reply to rogerwebb:




A nice example - isn't that better than gunboats facing off against each other? Those who think the idea of EU break-up leading to war is ridiculous would do well to look at just how many disputes are currently being resolved in this boring and bureaucratic manner.

To reverse the Chinese saying - may we continue to live in uninteresting times.

In reply to Wicamoi:

Yes sorry to barge into your discussion but Phil seemed to have taken it that states never face fines.
Just thought I'd point out that when the ECJ has had enough it can be quite punitive.

In reply to Roadrunner5:




Agreed. And your immediate experience of such things is valuable here.

In reply to lummox:


Ah, another demonstration of the intellectual depth we expect from the Remain campaign.

In reply to GridNorth:

You shouldn't be taken in by Rom. he will make statements like;


and expect you to take it as gospel, as its his word.

The truth is usually different;


and

In reply to Big Ger:

Capitalism works. It works very well for you if you happen to be a useless social parasite who is incapable of making a contribution to society, but if you don't own enough to live off and have to work for wages capitalism is never going to work in your interests. It really is that simple. This whole EU pantomime should fool nobody. Some capitalists will be better off at our expense if hapless dupes that think that we live in a democracy vote 'in' and, equally, some capitalists will be better off at our expense if hapless dupes that think that we live in a democracy vote 'out'. Other than that, everything will get shittier and shittier.

In reply to DoctorYoghourt:

I love your optimism.

In reply to DoctorYoghourt:
'Everything will get shittier and shittier.'
Except, for 500 million people, it hasn't.
I started work in the early 70s. Since then I have witnessed an unprecedented rise in the standard of living, qualitative improvements in employment rights, ditto human rights, vastly improved protection for the environment, better healthcare, hugely improved access to education. And we've shifted from a colonial approach to aid to an increasingly coordinated and enlightened one.

In reply to Badgers:

No surprises that gob shite climate change denier Nigel Lawson is firmly in the leave camp.

In reply to GrahamD:

I've been looking back over some of the Brexit posts. There appear to be a lot of attacks, like this one, on individuals that are extremely, personal, vindictive, vitriolic and just down right nasty and they are almost exclusively from the remain camp. Why do you feel a need to be like that? It doesn't do your cause any good in fact probably the opposite.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

The remain camp love to offer the view that we can only change the EU from within, but they have had 40 years and its not fixed, what makes them so sure another 40 years will change anything?

In reply to Big Ger:

You and your nasty chums with their very thinly veiled racist posts aren't really worth the effort. You're not going to change are you ?

In reply to cragtaff:

Firstly, it hasn't been 40 years; Masstricht was signed in 1992. 24 years doesn't seem a very long time for institutions to evolve, after all magna Carta was signed in 1215 and we still haven't got that right, either.

Secondly, it's not even that broken - Europe has enjoyed unprecededented improvements in the standard of living and, unlike say China or the US, not at the expense of the environment or working conditions; wealth has been distrinbuted, however imperfectly, across the EU so that long time economies like Poland, Romania, Greece and ??? will become more prosperous, enlarge EU markets an who knows? Become targest for free mobility of labour in their own right.

In reply to cragtaff:


We've had 100s of years to fix Westminster, but we haven't.

In reply to GridNorth:


That's because that is where you choose to look. Nigel Lawson was a gob shite long before he came out for Brexit. He is a gob shite for talking bollocks about climate change on a soap box unaacountably given to him by the BBC. In the context of Brexit he is one of the people I would least like to have any say on environmental issues.

In reply to cragtaff:

What is fundamentally wrong with the EU that we would (not could) do better ?

In reply to Valaisan:


You having a laugh? Last century we set Parliament to primacy over the lords, brought in voting for women and universal suffrage. In the last few years we've had a vote on changing from FPTP and in Labour's last time in Parliament we got rid of (most) of the inherited lordships. Looks like we've been fixing it to me - plus we've been devolving power to local regions (Mayors, assemblies, etc). Next up finishing Lords reform (particularly removing Lords only there because of their religion).

It's not perfect, but it's certainly much better than it was 100 years ago and it's gradually improving - improving because it's constantly on the agenda at elections and so parties compete to offer the best so that we'll vote for them. The EU is a huge step backwards.

In reply to GrahamD:

Let's not forget that Lawson refuses to say whether or not his climate change denying organisation is funded by petrochem interests.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Yes, but apart from the standard of living, employment rights, human rights, environmental protection, healthcare and education, what has the EU ever done for us?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The impression I get is that a high proportion of those voting for leave are voting due to:

1) Immigration. Basically, there's too many people of the wrong colour/not our values/it's a crowded island/etc. Schrodinger's Immigrant (that's the one that both lazes around living off the state AND takes all our jobs) has a lot to answer for. It's a combination of ignorance, predjudice and frankly racism.

Totally ignores the issues that unless indigenous brits start breeding a helluva lot more we'll have an aging population and declining workforce.

Oh, and we're not a "crowded island" there's around 700,000 empty houses in the UK. The reason we've got long waiting lists at hospitals is because they are neither funded or managed adequately. That's not the fault of the EU.

2) A desire to "stick it to the man" (as said above) and do the opposite of whatever our elected leaders/industry leaders/etc tell us.

I think this is a symptom of the fact people feel powerless in the current world. They think that "banksters", politicians, CEO's etc have all the power and live in gold plated houses eating caviar making decisions that affects millions but they have no control over their lives. Hence the leave vote is "getting back" at people.

Trouble is the politicians, bankers, CEO's etc don't really have control either. The world is a massively interconnected web of very heavy objects. It takes a lot to get them to move and when they do move want to stop immediately. It takes a massive amount of effort to change anything. As to the gold plated houses and the life of luxury, that's largely a fantasy. More likely is a phone call at 2.30am letting you know there's a conference call at 3am, and then there's no point going to sleep as meetings then start from 5am and run through until midnight. I'm not a member of this club but I'm close enough that I've seen the diaries. They are welcome to it. Paid a lot - yes. Have any time to enjoy it, or have a family life, or hobbies, or have any control of your own life - no.

I'm not arguing, by the way, that the current crop of politicians don't appear an odious, over-privileged lot, who totally ignore the views of the populace. I will also agree that there's many industry types who are unpleasant scum. These are the ones that make the papers. However in the same way that the woman who has 15 kids in the Daily Mail is not the norm, neither are the unpleasant scum. They are not all like that.

3) "Rule Britania", We're better on our own, we'll be masters of our own destiny. Etc.

Actually, no we won't. I refer to the massively interconnected world of heavy objects. What exit from the EU does do is allow us the unfettered ability to screw over our own citizens.

At present a UK government is constrained by EU rules. Especially with our current government I want that oversight. I think that exit from the EU will result in this country lurching to the right, where the ones that will lose will be the ordinary people.

In short, I think a lot of the reasons that people appear to be voting "out" appear to be based on a fantasy word that doesn't exist, combined with simplistic views of the world, casual racism, and desire to punish odious leaders.

There's also the point that in troubled times, only the idiot rocks the boat.

In reply to John_Hat:
I find it a little ironic that people who class themselves as socialists, and I don't necessarily mean you, seem happy to maintain the Eurocrats in the manner to which they have become accustomed and are aligning themselves with corporations, bankers etc. the very people who they have been slagging off for years and who seem to me to be pulling the strings in the EU. Happy to be proved wrong on that but that's my perception at the moment. They are a privileged elite and they are growing in numbers. How do we address that?

Is it true that the Eurocrats have motor lanes reserved solely for their use? Next thing you know they will be building shopping Malls that we ordinary citizens are banned from. Oh wait a minute!

In reply to GridNorth:

I am a bleeding heart liberal who works in the finance industry. Does that help?

In reply to John_Hat:
How do you sleep at night, your brain must be in a permanent state of conflict

In reply to GridNorth:

You seem to be under the impression that RemaINers think the EU is the finished thing. It is a work in progress.

In reply to John_Hat:
> desire to punish odious leaders.

perhaps if during the big negotiation they had been seen to do things that pleased and benefited the electorate as whole, then there would be less desire to punish the leaders.

Instead all we've heard from the odious EU leaders over the past month or more are either thinly vailed threats or very open threats of punishment in one form or another if the UK population demonstrates it's democratic right in a manner that they don't agree with. Which in itself is a reason to leave them to rot.

despite roughly 50% of a major contributing EU nation wanting to exit, not once have they suggested that further reform might improve things in the future. They would rather risk it all, than lose face or change course.

In reply to Shani:

No, I know it's a work in progress, that's what worries me

In reply to GridNorth:


I really don't think it is - it's hard to prove a negative, but there doesn't appear to be any record of this from a google search (if it was true, I think it would show up on searches, and would be picked up quite strongly by the pro-Leave groups).


I'm also not aware of any of these - but if there were shopping centres that weren't open to the public, how would that be an EU issue rather than a national one?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

The motor lanes was said with tongue firmly in cheek but I do understand that there is a shopping mall that is for the sole use of the Eurocrats.

It's an EU issue because it was created by the EU for the EU and is a further sign that they are an overpaid, privileged elite becoming more detached from the elecorate.

In reply to GridNorth:
'Is it true that the Eurocrats have motor lanes reserved solely for their use? '

No. Does that help change your mind?

'but I do understand that there is a shopping mall that is for the sole use of the Eurocrats.'

Have you a reference for that? Thought not. Unless it's like the crèche in Quarry House 'for exclusive use of NHS Apparatchiks' or shops inside universities 'for the exclusive use of students' and so on. A disgrace.

In reply to GridNorth:


I have tried to look for this but can't find any reference on the internet. Do you have any details you could post?


I can see it looks a bit odd, although I can't rebut any of these arguments about said Mall because I can't find any evidence it exists.

As to whether the EU bureaucracy is overpaid / bloated, one of the interesting features of the EU administration is how small it is for the demos - smaller than Birmingham City council, even though it serves a demos of 500bn+.

In reply to GridNorth:


I believe its best to work with people in order to make things better for everyone. Bit like the EU really.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Again, under the current circumstances the question that I'd ask here is not "is it as good as it could be", but "is it, for everything that might be wrong with it, delivering us more value than we pay for it"? I'd say that the answer to this is a resounding "yes" - the economic boost that we get from having full access to the common market (and from offering that access to anyone who wants to base their operation in the UK) absolutely dwarfs the amount that we pay to be a part of the EU, and hence it'd represent good value even if it was entirely spent on cocaine fuelled orgies for senior European Civil Servants.

Worrying about it in absolute terms feels a bit like not buying the best value car available because you think the manufacturer overpays their CEO.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I know the IOC wanted this between Oslo and Lillehammer for a future Olympics bid. Amongst cocktail parties with the royals, a new 5*+ hotel and all sorts of other things. The Parliament said it didn't think in the present climate that this kind of expenditure was morally right and dropped the bid for their winter Olympics.

It's easy to get confused between the elite of the EU, IOC, FIFA etc.. they are probably all on each others phones, Bilderberg meetings etc..

In reply to Ramblin dave:
If the UK was not a net contributor but actually got out far more than it paid in and still had all the benefits that the EU supposedly offers, like most EU countries, I'd vote to remain.
Since there's no chance of that happening I'll be voting to leave.

Pmc

In reply to Wicamoi:

You appear to be quite well informed on the workings of the ECJ, so perhaps you can tell me who foots the legal bill for the UK when they get taken to court? I presume the defence bill isn't covered by your 'half of the £350 million a week' figure. If it's some private law firm in the UK that does the defending at a cost of millions to the UK taxpayer, then that proves my point about it being in the interests of lawyers to drag out proceedings for as long as possible.

Secondly, someone else mentioned a France being fined every 3 months over a fishing dispute, but are they actually paying that fine? Why is the ECJ taking member states to court for the wrongdoings of private companies? Do they not have the power to go after the companies themselves?

I admit that I haven't got a clue how the ECJ conducts its business, but from the online facts and figures that I had a quick read through it all seemed a bit farcical and ineffective.

In any case, you don't need to convince me of anything, I'll admit defeat on this point due to lack of understanding of how the whole process works.

In reply to summo:

So hang on, you want to leave the EU because other, non-EU organisations are corrupt?

I assume that you mean the EU parliament in that sentence, so surely they did the right thing?

Finally, there isn't really any reason to lump those bodies into the same category except to try and associate the EU with bodies which have been subject to major scandals (which the EU hasn't). It just makes you sound desperate to sling mud at the EU with no foundation.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Nope, read it again. I was talking generally and joking, likening them to each other, for the fact they are all led by greedy power hungry people disconnected from the people they claim to represent. Even old teflon coated butter wouldn't melt in the mouth Coe seems to be finding the truth is slowly catching up with him.


NO, Again, since when would the EU parliament be deciding if Norway would bid for the Olympics and want a road between Oslo and Lillehammer? it was more the point that the poster could have got the organisation which want it's own elite road mixed up with each other.


My apologies, Juncker has such a clean honest history, not a blotch on it.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I think this is where the story about the shopping centre came from. Hard to know if it's true or not, because they could have filmed it in any shopping centre. I try not to get my 'facts' from any sites that clearly support either side of the referendum campain.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisHansenEU/status/735565606292967425

In reply to summo:


That's the objectionable bit though isn't it? Not that there is any evidence, you're just saying trying to make people think that they're all as bad as each other by association (even where the association isn't actually there).


OK - so we all agree, the EU hasn't asked for these things, and it's therefore irrelevant for this discussion.


So lobby your MEP not to support his election as president - he is an official who is elected by the parliament.

In reply to Phil Payne:

Looks genuine to me ... but also pretty much what you would expect. Indeed it sounds spookily similar to the fare in place in Westminster, which Brexiteers don't appear to be getting worked up about - http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/business-news/politics/five-weird-facili...

So all in all yet another red herring when it comes to the EU referendum debate. I preferred the alleged ban on straight bananas as that was at least quite funny.

In reply to john arran:
Not sure it's a red herring. I agree that we have a privileged elite in the UK so why on earth would we want to create another?

In reply to baron:


I'd say that we get far more out of it than we put in once you factor in unfettered access to the free market and considerable sway over how that market is regulated. Countries like Norway and Switzerland are paying through the nose for access to the single market without even getting to help make the rules.

Sure, if we leave, we'll free up £X million a week from not paying into the EU, but that'll be wiped out almost immediately by the cost of increased unemployment and decreased tax revenues as our economy stumbles.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
I was thinking more along the lines of us staying in the EU with all its benefits but not being a net contributor - like most full members of the EU.
Yes I know it's not going to happen but therein lies a major problem, in my opinion, that some countries are asked to contribute far more than others but don't receive anything extra in return.

In reply to baron:



How would that work?

If we want to reduce immigration the best way is to improve the quality of life in other countries, reduce the have/have not gap.. The rich poor divide.

So the strongest nations in NW Europe invest in weaker areas. Germany is a great example of how this. Worked, the old west regions paid a unification tax and life in the east vastly improved, city centers renovated, road networks improved and the old East was developed and people stayed there.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


That's the problem though. No one has convinced me that is indeed the case and to be perfectly frank I would be surprised if there was anyone on this forum qualified to do so.

Switzerland is a bad comparison I watched something recently that made me wish I lived in Switzerland. High wages, low tax, low unemployment, growing economy, wealthy, happy citizens. Of course someone will say that's all wrong and back we go on the merry go round.

I'm coming to the conclusion that my decision will be based on whether I want to be part of an expanding bureaucracy dominated by Germany and France or not. That debate seems to fall into two factions. Optimistic, idealists on the one hand and pessimistic, pragmatists on the other. I'll let others decide which is which

In reply to GridNorth:

So you're saying we should get rid of the priveleged elite here first, you know - deal with our at home issues first, look after our own, etc before considering dealing with overseas bureaucracy. I couldn't have said it better myself - a brilliant argument to remain if I ever saw one.

In reply to baron:



We seem have considerably more influence on EU policy than a lot of smaller and poorer countries do, but I'll admit that that's rather difficult to quantify (apart from having a lot more MEPs) or put value on.

Again, though, that seems like pique rather than a rational cost benefit analysis. The question is not whether it's costing us more than it's costing other countries, it's whether staying in is costing us more than leaving. And the general consensus from business and finance seems to be that leaving could be one of the most expensive mistakes we've ever made.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yep.

How many people on this forum are paying the bank back MORE than they took out in a mortgage? The same principle applies at a macro economic level in the EU. We are investing in future growth and return for the UK.

You pay for access to a MARKET and you then try to develop your national business model exploit that market. You can't just redistribute that investment locally as our national economy couldn't sustain DEMAND for much of the stuff we have specialised in.

It is a necessary factor of economics that we buy in to a sophisticated and mature market such as the EU as only those kinds of markets can support the high end products and services the UK produces. You need a market of a particular complexity and size to sustain Aston Martin, BAe etc...

I've pointed out over the last few years that the economic problems we are experiencing at the moment are demand side. Without access to the EU (and we WILL pay through the nose to access it), there isn't sufficient demand to sustain much of our output. We're heading for a self imposed contraction.

In reply to SenzuBean:

I don't think I said that.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



I agree that's the consensus of the Corporate world, you know, the one that so many of you rail against in other contexts. Aren't the SME's in favour of Brexit?

In reply to GridNorth:


I can't spell out the full economic argument myself, but I can go on what other experts are saying and doing. And at least one thing that they're saying pretty unilaterally is that losing access to the single market would be catastrophic, and that there's no guarantee that we'd be able to keep access to the single market if we left the EU.

For instance, £100bn was wiped off the value of the FTSE over the few days after Leave polled strongly at the weekend - and that's purely on stronger than expected poll results, not on it actually happening. This is a pretty strong indication of the international consensus on how British business would fare if we left.

Again, I really hate to focus on the "fear" side and the economic consequences of leaving, but it's properly doing my head in how deeply some people are burying their heads in the sand over the reality of it.

In reply to Phil Payne:


Government legal service


I would be very surprised if they didn't pay because it would appear that the behaviour complained of has ceased.


The Government is taken to court in those cases for failing to apply the law and for not going after the companies themselves. In the particular case the French government was failing to enforce the law regarding net sizes.

In reply to GridNorth:


I think because people don't line UKIP using Nazi style propaganda posters to scare the population like Hitler did.


If you are fine with getting that sort of support, fine. Many of us find it horrific that such actions are acceptable to divide Europe again.

In reply to GridNorth:


I'm not in favour of Brexit and I'm an SME. I'm not that much in favour of either but when pushed, I'm In.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

At this rate I'm going to end up as the most prolific poster on the Forum this month but I am very concerned about all of this and even more concerned about my ignorance. It's why I keep playing devils advocate so please forgive me.

You could equally argue that the in side are burying their heads in the sand over increasing federalisation, dominance by France and Germany and increasing immigration could you not?

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


I have plenty of criticisms of the "corporate world", but am happy to admit that a) it knows which side its bread's buttered economically and b) directly and indirectly it keeps a whole lot of people - myself included - in jobs, paying taxes, not claiming benefits and so on.

In reply to GridNorth:

Where do you get the "dominance by France and Germany" bit from? They're the biggest players in the Eurozone but the UK should be just as influential in the EU as a whole. Of course that would mean no longer playing a hands-off game and then blaming [the rest of] Europe whenever it suits Westminster to detract attention from its domestic policy shortcomings.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Just to elaborate on this point a little; if the leader of the 'Leave' campaign can get away with racism, subtle or not, with just a few probing newspaper reports and no actual sanctions, then the whole debate was bound to descend into vile inaccurate and often irrelevant mudslinging - from both sides!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-barack-obama-ke...

In reply to john arran:

Often the simplest statements are the best. Nice one

In reply to baron:


Other countries like the strongest economic force in the EU, Germany, for instance ? what benefit do you think they can possibly see in keeping Europe united ?

In reply to GridNorth:


I know

But couldn't resist using that all too common brexit argument in a new setting - to produce an opposite outcome, showing how poor of an argument it is in the first place. I know you didn't yourself use the argument, but as I said - I couldn't resist.

In reply to GridNorth:

If such a mall exists it means no such thing. It's more likely a private company is operating a mall, for profit, within the EU campus. Many large companies rent out space in their buildings for other companies to offer services to their staff.

By any chance is the Daily Mail spinning something rather mundane as unfettered profligacy again?

In reply to GridNorth:


Or we stay, be involved & not let the Germans & French dominate

In reply to andyfallsoff:


I would suggest the EU is in part worse than the IOC or FIFA, as at least people bring the IOC on themselves by asking to host the games etcc. We will see what percentage of the UK doesn't want the EU next week, but if it's less than 50% they are stuck with them. Yes, that's democracy, so I will just have to live with it.

it was relevant because it was related to roads for only the elite.


I think a few countries, including the UK objected to Juncker, didn't change anything. A few countries also want Juncker to this day to be more open about Luxembourg's tax arrangements, but he hasn't done that either.
So lobbying my MEP won't make a single bit of difference.

In reply to GridNorth: al, if we leave we still need access to the common market. F and G then totally dominate what happens to us and what deals we get. We'd be about 10% of the EU.. They will have the upper hand in negotiations.

In reply to Valaisan:

I am a SME and firmly In

In reply to summo:
How is it worse than FIFA?

Provide some evidence. That's an idiotic outlandish statement.

I don't doubt, like with the U.K. Gov expenses are abused but outright criminal activity?

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Have you ever been to the former East Germany?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

My understanding is that we will still have access to the common market. I believe Germany exports 44% of their cars to us. Do you seriously believe they would do anything to interfere with that? Out industry has been run down since the 70's, agriculture also appears to have suffered according to my farmer neighbours. Is it just coincidence that during that time French agriculture and German industry have grown?

In reply to Ramblin dave:
The question is 'why does it cost us more than most countries?' - as I'm presuming that most countries pay far less than us but receive all the benefits that we do?

In reply to baron:
I lived there for a year. Why?

In reply to GridNorth:

If we have access to the common market we MUST have open borders..

In reply to GridNorth:
Our agriculture is fine in regions. It just depends where.

In reply to baron:

Why is that the question?

If I said "either I can give you £50 and GridNorth £100 or I can give neither of you anything", would you say take nothing because you don't want GridNorth getting a better deal than you?

In reply to GridNorth:


Only if we sign up to the Single Market/EEA which means paying (check how much Norway pays each year), accepting all the rules including movement of EU citizens but having no role in the decision making.

In reply to Doug:


This is what I just don't understand..

That's as good as we can have it if we want common market access

In reply to Doug:


Lamont's view on it -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/not-only-can-britain-can-leave-t...

In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Not sure I'd believe anything Lamont says given his record on climate change but quickly looking at that article suggests he focuses on trade tariffs and ignores the fact that we'd have to follow EU regulations but have no say in their development

In reply to GridNorth:

I'm not sure on the 44% stat, but put it another way - do you think that we are so important an export market to Germany (1 member of the EU) that all EU countries will cut us a deal that gives us everything we want? As an overall, we take something like 8% of EU exports, but I think just under half of our goods are exported to the EU. Doesn't that show that we need them more than they need us?


But during that same time we've gone from being the so called "sick man of Europe" to 5th largest economy in the world. How can anyone argue that we've been hurt by the EU, based on that evidence? Perhaps our balance of industry has changed, but that's a feature of nearly all developed countries.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



where did I say criminal? Care to explain what has been honest and transparent in Junkcer's tax deals whilst he was president of Luxembourg, it's not criminal, but it's pretty dishonest and was certainly not putting the EU before individual nations selfish needs, yet they make him president. Which can only make you think most of the other leaders are rotten to the core too.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
I don't want you to give me anything but I do want to pay the same as most other countries.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Then you'll know that large parts of the former East Germany are still years behind West Germany and that many Germans both east and west are not convinced of the benefits of unification.

In reply to baron:

Are they as many years behind as they were before reunification?

In reply to summo:
You said it was worse than FIFA?


http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/34991874

In reply to baron:
They are still behind but have rapidly caught up.

Really? Apart from a few old grumpy bastards almost everyone i met in the east was pro joining and saw the benefits. So much so people in the west felt their CBDs lagged behind those of the east where money and institutions moved.

Many in the west felt it was time to stop paying the east as they'd caught up enough.

I lived in Rostock and it was very much for unification and still had a hatred and mistrust of Russia.

In reply to baron:


You want us the hand back our rebate?

In reply to summo:
Politicians in personal interest shocker!

You should look at US senators, get in office from teaching retire multi millionaires.. There's not many world leaders not in it for their own interest as well.

But far better than FIFA which is why your claim was again outlandish. Do the leave side have to keep lying?

In reply to GridNorth:


Exports to the UK account for around 12% of German car production.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Two disliked this.

Can you explain what leverage we have that Norway and Switzerland don't?

I've not seen anyone suggest single market access can be gained without open borders.

In reply to baron:


I'd like to answer this, but as a signed up campaigner I'm rightly suspending campaigning till Sunday.

Martin

In reply to The New NickB:
Why do we have a rebate?
Why can't we just pay the same as Spain or Italy?
Even after receiving our rebate we're still the second biggest net contributor to the EU. (If my Telegraph source is accurate!)

In reply to Roadrunner5:


just because some US senators are more rotten to the core than Juncker, does that mean it is OK for Juncker to run a tax have within the EU for decades ?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


omg, you are painful at times. Talking about twisting stuff. I said "at least countries have choice with fifa or the Ioc, in that they applying to hold games". We are stuck with the rotten likes of Juncker and the EU, we have no choice. So if you can be bothered to re-read what I said, I made no outlandish claims or lies etc..

You can distract attention away from it of course, but either way Juncker ran a tax haven in Luxembourg and still refuses to declare what tax deals were done with several multi nationals.

In reply to baron:


because the EU needs us more than we need them, so Thatcher basically forced the EU into it. We've done well to keep it considering some of weak leaders we've had of late.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


we have very little leverage judging by what little Cameron came back with in Dec/Jan. A few token gestures than some other Eu leaders would not be honoured anyway.

If Norway and Switzerland have it so bad and are suffering without a voice, how come they don't want to join?

In reply to baron:

We negotiated it.



Third I think, behind Germany and France. We pay the lowest percentage of Gross National Income of all members.

In reply to GridNorth:

Really!!

Do you mean 44% of their production comes to us?

Or do you mean 44% of their exports come to us?

The former assertion is obviously complete nonsense. The latter assertion seems a tad over optimistic. Could you provide some evidence for either assertion.

In reply to summo:



Some do.. Some don't..

But switzerlands banking is a major issue

For Norway they are cash rich

In reply to summo:
How do they have a choice with FIFA?

Elections were bribed. The choice was leave the lucrative football tv deals. No country had a choice due to criminal corruption

In reply to Roadrunner5:




Both Switzerland and Norway are all virtually in the EU in all but the name.
Norway pays more per head than we do in the EU budget, and has way more immigrants per head too.
The Swiss have a completely broken relationship with the EU, they can't even implement the results of its constitutional referendum on EU immigrant because if they do it pretty much jeopardises all of their bilateral agreements with the EU, so much for "sovereignty", they can't do anything and don't have a say.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:




As an example BMW sell about three times as many cars in the U.S. As they do in the UK.

All German brands sold 650,000 cars in the UK in 2015, BMW alone sold 400,000 cars in the U.S. In the same period. Mercedes sold 380,000.