# Fed up with the hyperbole of the referendum?



## Yorkshire Sam (24 May 2016)

Are you like me wanting to hear a balanced argument about EU? Fed up of being scared or lied to by the politicians of both camps?
Came across a site which gives a lot of facts about Britain and the EU. Its from the Economic Research council at Kings College and does not appear to be biased either for and against brexit but lays facts out under various subject heading for those wishing to know more. I found it fascinating reading and learned a lot about the EU and about how many untruths (lies to you an me!) all the politicians are spouting.
It certainly gave me a new insight and may have even changed the way I might vote. 
http://ukandeu.ac.uk/about-us/

It brought to mind one of my fathers favourite sayings ... A sure way of telling when politicians are lying to you is to look at their face... are their lips moving?


----------



## Wuffles (24 May 2016)

I like that, thank you. 

Watched this over my sandwich: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/multimedia/eu-budg ... -debunked/

I did hear on the News Quiz the other day that the whole thing is a p*ssing contest between Cameron and Boris - they should just have a scrap and be done with it {cue Star Trek fight music}. Make it Pay Per View, could probably save the NHS with the revenue generated.


----------



## NazNomad (24 May 2016)

The rich and powerful are pi$$ing on us and the media is telling us that it's raining.


----------



## MIGNAL (24 May 2016)

It is a scrap between Cameron and Floppy hair. Surely the winner then leads the Tory party.


----------



## Racers (24 May 2016)

400 Quatloos on the floppy haired one.


Pete


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 May 2016)

I'd be a tad suspicious about anything that claims to be 'neutral' or 'unbiased' in this debate. There seem to be a lot of people and organisations about with veiled agendas.

To me, the basic questions are;

1) Who governs.
2) In who's interests.
3) To whom are they accountable.

It might be worth re-reading the posted link with those questions in mind before making a decision about which way to vote.


----------



## lurker (24 May 2016)

Politicians are only interested in number one.
They are all a bunch of liars

Although I am going to vote out, most of the out politicians are completely odious.
True the in lot are not much better
Hopefully Johnson will to be seen for the conman and chancer he is.


----------



## graduate_owner (24 May 2016)

I think the main problem is that nobody really knows what will happen if we leave, so the public is being fed a diet of supposition from both sides. And if the 'experts' don't really know, how can we mere mortals know which way to vote.
Overall I am not sure that this is the sort of decision that should be made by referendum.

K


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 May 2016)

Nobody really knows what will happen if we stay in - nobody really knows now what we would be staying in.
I suppose it would be OK as long as we elect a government that meets EU approval.


----------



## lurker (24 May 2016)

Can you remember how we were doomed if we did not join the euro?

I believe (am not sure) we have Gordon brown to thank for keeping us out of that fiasco


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 May 2016)

Only because he loathed Blair, not because he had any brains.


----------



## Eric The Viking (25 May 2016)

Many (most) academic organisations receive huge amounts from the EU. They long ago realised you had to get 'em young, and have been pushing propaganda at schools and universities for decades. Some even got pulped in the early noughties when it was too extreme (cartoon books for children showing Eurosceptics in Nazi costumes, IIRC). 

In universities there are all sorts of prizes, especially in the arts, and research grants. It's not free. We're actually paying for our children to be indoctrinated through our taxes. Like global warming, nobody gets a grant for being a sceptic. Go figure, as the Yanks say.

I have a copy of Bernard Connolly's (in)famous book "The Rotten Heart of Europe". It's a rare hardback first edition, given to me by a good friend who has now taken US citizenship. It's rare, because the EU tried to suppress it. 

Connolly wrote it whilst working as an economist for the European Commission, and it talks about the corruption at the heart of the organisation. He was suspended, sacked and then prosecuted in the European Court for writing it. The prosecutor alleged that attacking the European project was a crime "akin to blasphemy" in the EU. It was a staggering statement for the C21st, and I'm not sure if he wanted Connolly stoned or drawn+quartered, but you get the idea (go Google it!). Unsurprisingly, it wasn't covered much in the British papers (the days of Bliar), but the Torygraph did run something at the time:
Here and Here. 
I note with wry amusement that the first report includes Prodi (then EU President) blaming "American Economic Mismanagement" for the problems with the Euro!

The final decision was that preventing criticism of the EU trumps European human rights legisaltion and was akin to treason (they backpedalled on the blasphemy thing).

For me it's not about short term economics. Its about the culture of the state my children and grandchildren will live in. Spilling state secrets is one thing, but suppressing free speech because it implicates corrupt bureaucrats? Don't expect it to end well, when it inevitably does end.

E.

PS: obviously, we should take the red pill.


----------



## devonwoody (25 May 2016)

In the past other countries have voted out, and within a short period the Eu comes back with a deal for the country that voted out and then they vote back in.

So its out for me which is a win win, and if they do not make an offer I am still satisfied.


----------



## DiscoStu (25 May 2016)

I made my decision a couple of weeks ago and in the end it came down to democracy. In the UK we can vote to get rid of our government every few years. We have no such vote in Europe and as a country the European laws are forced upon us. Immigration is a perfect example. I'm not against immigration or freedom of travel but you can't have a large net gain and not have additional resources such as Schools, roads etc. I'd rather have the UK responsible for its own issues. Our economy is certainly better without Europe so why not everything else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":us5vwwnu said:


> Many (most) academic organisations receive huge amounts from the EU. They long ago realised you had to get 'em young, and have been pushing propaganda at schools and universities for decades. Some even got pulped in the early noughties when it was too extreme (cartoon books for children showing Eurosceptics in Nazi costumes, IIRC).
> 
> In universities there are all sorts of prizes, especially in the arts, and research grants. It's not free. We're actually paying for our children to be indoctrinated through our taxes. Like global warming, nobody gets a grant for being a sceptic. Go figure, as the Yanks say.
> 
> ...


Grotesque exaggeration verging on hysteria!

The court decided that sacking Connolly was fair enough but he was not prosecuted for writing it. 

There is no right to suppress dissent. 

You can say what you like about the EU and everybody does (which should be pretty bleedin' obvious!!!)

His book is not rare or suppressed you can buy it on Amazon 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rotten-Heart-E ... 0571301746

It has been freely available since publication - you can even get it in Kindle for 99p

and so on............. :roll: 

All the brexit arguments are about fear and paranoia - I've yet to see a calm and sensible one, still less any sensible proposals about how we would improve our lot out of EU

PS I've just bought the Kindle edition - it sounds an interesting read. Or if not, no doubt it'll help me get off to sleep!


----------



## lurker (25 May 2016)

I was going to mention you can download the book as a PDF so clearly its freely available, I'm surprised the outies don't cite it as evidence of EU financial mismanagement (which I have seen with my own eyes on my frequent visits to Spain).

Jacob,
I know its the torygraph but how do you explain away the second of Eric's links?
Looks like straight reporting to me


----------



## Eric The Viking (25 May 2016)

I said the first edition was rare. Regarding suppression of free speech, read the court reports and form your own opinion.

I'd also cite the case of Marta Andreason (accountant) in similar vein. She was horrified about the corruption, and similarly pilloried for speaking out about it,

Anyway, the issue is the attitude of the EU prosecutor (supposedly acting on OUR behalf), particularly in the Connolly case. 

I don't want to be part of any sort of club that has those "rules", even if they're not rigidly enforced. If we don't hasve open government at all levels we don't have proper democracy. 

Nothing either of them said was dangerous to European security, it was merely embarrassing to the governing elite of the EU.


----------



## Jacob (25 May 2016)

lurker":1pcx815x said:


> I was going to mention you can download the book as a PDF so clearly its freely available, I'm surprised the outies don't cite it as evidence of EU financial mismanagement (which I have seen with my own eyes on my frequent visits to Spain).


Nothing is perfect - either in or out. It's a _process_ and issues such as mismanagement have to be engaged, in this and all other institutions around the world. But if we are out we are excluded from the process.


> Jacob,
> I know its the torygraph but how do you explain away the second of Eric's links?
> Looks like straight reporting to me


Their heading "Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU" is simply not true. It's the torygraph's wishful-thinking, scaremongering, interpretation.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

lurker":3f564roo said:


> I was going to mention you can download the book as a PDF so clearly its freely available, I'm surprised the outies don't cite it as evidence of EU financial mismanagement (which I have seen with my own eyes on my frequent visits to Spain).
> 
> Jacob,
> I know its the torygraph but how do you explain away the second of Eric's links?
> Looks like straight reporting to me


It was in the Telegraph (or the Mail) therefore a lie. Quod erat demonstrandum.


----------



## bugbear (25 May 2016)

*unbiased research* _(compound noun)_: research which supports my view.

(see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

To be clear, both the "IN" and "OUT" campaigns are guilty of this. Politicians and activists generally TBH.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brussels-Laid-B ... 095541881X
I suppose her version is all lies well? I've been informed by Europhiles that http://campaignforanindependentbritain. ... -a-Day.pdf is nothing but lies.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

Someone made a reasonable observation on the Times on Line - everything Osborne has forecast up to now has been opposite to what actually happened, so now he's forecast disaster if we leave ...


----------



## mind_the_goat (25 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":ipgg3f92 said:


> Many (most) academic organisations receive huge amounts from the EU....



That may well be true, and with no 'plan' in place to replace this investment there could be a big negative impact on UK research. I believe it's quite reasonable for such organisations to be worried. Most of these are not total self serving organisations, their work will feed into the UK knowledge economy, which is pretty much all we have apart from banking.



Eric The Viking":ipgg3f92 said:


> ....and then prosecuted in the European Court for writing it..



The court case you refer to was basically an unfair dismissal claim, not a prosecution, very different things. I'm not arguing the rights or wrongs of the decision, but it's not at all uncommon for civil servants to be sacked for speaking out against government. 

Thanks to Sam for posting that first link, thankfully there are a few groups doing their best to explain the impact of the two choices, and within that that the myriad of different possible outcomes.


----------



## Fitzroy (25 May 2016)

I see this as the most significant issue I will have voted on in my lifetime, but the one that I know the least about, and I consider myself pretty well educated! I've registered for an online weblearn, link below, and between this and reading around the subject I've decided I was poorly educated and ill-informed as it is just not that simple issue.

The media, and both Brexit and Remain camps, love sound-bites but the fact of the matter is that it is more complicated than that! I doubt more than 10% of the people who go to the polls will have looked into the matter beyond the sound-bites, and their decision (either way) will be on the same basis as Mr Huddersfield (2nd link below).

https://openeducation.blackboard.com/mooc-catalog/courseDetails/view?course_id=_985_1#

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...ks-britain-should-leave-the-eu-20160524109070


----------



## Cordy (25 May 2016)

I agree with Gillian Duffy


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

:lol: Tracy Emin's desire to stay in has just reinforced mine to get out.


----------



## Eric The Viking (25 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":32wetoph said:


> Eric The Viking":32wetoph said:
> 
> 
> > Many (most) academic organisations receive huge amounts from the EU....
> ...


Rubbish. We can fund what we choose, although IMHO, the first thing to be scrapped should be the Galileo project (that would save quite a lot!). We only need a third GPS satellite constellation if the American and Russian ones fail, or we intend to invade either country. 

Much 'research' is in the fields of social sciences, and it IS used in essence for pro-EU propaganda, and is all the more upsetting as it's aimed at undergraduates. There are sponsorship programmes, too (Erasmus?), taxpayers' money 'repurposed' to fund pro-EU jollys for students.

Don't get me started on EU arts funding, either. Take my money in taxes, slice off a percentage to pay bureaucracy, then give it away to many projects I don't agree with, labelled as "art", _with a political agenda_? 

Wonderful to be able to use other people's money as largesse.



> I believe it's quite reasonable for such organisations to be worried. Most of these are not total self serving organisations, their work will feed into the UK knowledge economy, which is pretty much all we have apart from banking.


That's an interesting analysis. Not one I agree with, of course.



> Eric The Viking":32wetoph said:
> 
> 
> > ....and then prosecuted in the European Court for writing it..
> ...



Andreason's case was definitely unfair dismissal, which she lost. IIRC, Connolly's was a (criminal) prosecution.


----------



## mind_the_goat (25 May 2016)

phil.p":2lr7zw93 said:


> :lol: Tracy Emin's desire to stay in has just reinforced mine to get out.



That might be a typical response to a personality that many people may base their vote on, Pretty sure I'm under the influence as well, Boris being a very clever (and ambitious) person masquerading as a buffoon means I trust him the least of all those involved.



Eric The Viking":2lr7zw93 said:


> Rubbish. We can fund what we choose,


Yes, of course we can, but there is no guarantee existing EU funding would be replaced so they are going to be concerned



Eric The Viking":2lr7zw93 said:


> the first thing to be scrapped should be the Galileo project


Perhaps, seems to be going the way of the Eurofighter, very very late, over budget and in need of an upgrade as soon as it is completed. Having it though would make us more independent of other countries, which is what many Brexiters want for us. Not so much a problem of the other systems failing, more likely they could be throttled to reduce accuracy, which used to be the case. The Galileo system would be more accurate, something that may be essential for widespread use of self driving vehicles, and Amazon drone delivery systems, there is prospect of it bringing in revenue, but how much is hard to predict.



Eric The Viking":2lr7zw93 said:


> Much 'research' is in the fields of social sciences, and it IS used in essence for pro-EU propaganda


Are you saying that research projects are pushed out by the EU, possibly with emphasis on the result expected, or grants are preferentially offered to 'favourable' requests? Or maybe something else. Not an area I'm familiar with but interested in your concerns.



Eric The Viking":2lr7zw93 said:


> There are sponsorship programmes, too....Don't get me started on EU arts funding.


Good. EU sponsorship for students is even more essential now many students will come out of university with more debt then I have ever had in my whole life. There are also many grants that support small businesses, community groups and individuals. Is that really a problem?
Many people on this forum could be considered artists, maybe some are eligible. I admit to sometimes finding it annoying that some people are able get through life by doing art, and enjoying themselves, instead of doing a proper job and being miserable, but, I do enjoy seeing public artworks and I'm sure many other do too. There are far worse things our money get spent on.



Eric The Viking":2lr7zw93 said:


> then give it away to many projects I don't agree with


Yeah, that happens, most of my taxes are given away to projects I don't agree with, in areas I never go to and people I never meet. on an individual level that kinda the point.


----------



## DTR (25 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":3k3z43o2 said:


> I admit to sometimes finding it annoying that some people are able get through life by doing art, and enjoying themselves, instead of doing a proper job and being miserable.



:lol:


----------



## graduate_owner (25 May 2016)

Another thing I don't understand is the suggestion that whilst we can change our government every 5 years, we will not be able to get out of Europe unless we vote to leave now. Why not? Cameron pledged to hold a referendum in his manifesto, so we have a referendum. Why could we not have another in 15 years time, even in 5 years time? What is to stop the next party leader from pledging another referendum if elected just like Cameron did? Is there yet another EU law that says member countries can only hold one referendum in any specified period, or in our lifetimes?

By the same argument - if we leave the EU, will we able to re-join? So if this is our now-or-never chance to get ouf of the EU then surely it is also our now-or never chance to stay in?

Whichever way you want to vote, it seems to me that the now-or-never chance to leave argument is somewhat spurious.

K


----------



## Eric The Viking (25 May 2016)

This is exactly the sort of political interference I was talking about, although in this case simple bullying rather than bribery:

BBC: Netflix and Amazon face quota on EU-made content:


The BBC journalist":14vegp6m said:


> "This is driven by the core problem that the EU identified 40 years ago, that the Hollywood studios and other US producers dominate global box office and broadcasting because they have scale that cannot be achieved in a fragmented EU," said Alice Enders, from the media consultancy Enders Analysis.


EU mouthpiece alert!

If Europe is so bad for film making, why do so many projects film in the EU, in particular Hungary and the Czech republic?

Film4 supposedly shows the best of EU video production (and it does get a lot of EU money for its projects), but much that's indigenous is simply dire and wouldn't survive at the box office. One reason Hollywood has stayed at the top of its game for so long is that it's simply ruthless in not accepting stuff that isn't entertaining. That's not to say 'worthy' stuff doesn't get made, but that the standards have to be very high.

And I've just remembered: Game of Thrones is shot in the EU too (Northern Ireland). I doubt that would count either, because the production values are very firmly Hollywood (not that I've ever watched it).

I'm not anti-art at all, I just disagree with the idea that someone can do something badly and get given our money via the EU, because they call it art and made it in the EU, and/or (presumably) they have a political slant. It all sounds very Stalinist to me.


----------



## RobinBHM (25 May 2016)

I find it frustrating that the EU spend so much money on their own staff

I can remember when Neil Kinnock became an British eu commissioner and was earning more than the prime minister. 

MEPs now earn about 8000 euros a month


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

And their expenses are much the same (see what they can get without needing receipts :shock: ). I've never under stood why this is the one and only referendum, as no government can bind any following government to anything.


----------



## Water-Mark (25 May 2016)

I found it interesting how boris was on the fence one minute and leading the out campaign with gusto the next.
I've never known anybody waiver over a decision then commit so hard.


Worth noting is that the result is not binding. 

Vote all you like, we'll be staying in regardless.


----------



## Wuffles (25 May 2016)

Water-Mark":96pmrzaq said:


> I found it interesting how boris was on the fence one minute and leading the out campaign with gusto the next.
> I've never known anybody waiver over a decision then commit so hard.
> 
> 
> ...



He's also been responsible for writing a few of the classic BS EU stories over the years too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

The Conservative Party were told not to campaign for out, and were refused statistics by the government. That might have something to do with it. Conversely, Cameron was (apparently) eager to leave if he didn't get what he wanted. However, it's all reformed now and a nice place again.
Vote all you like, we'll be staying in regardless? My thoughts a few months ago, but I suspect there would be riots.
The problem with BS stories is that the EU itself comes out with so much of it that the more ridiculous something is, the less likely I am to query it.


----------



## Water-Mark (25 May 2016)

I can't see there being riots, the people who'd be prepared to won't care.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

I tend to agree with a woman advisor to Obama who said she thought it wouldn't make more than a % or two of difference one way or the other on GDP no matter what happened, and it would take years to do that.
I enjoy the threads in the on line newspaper I subscribe to. One left wing rabid Europhile has been telling everyone for weeks that if we leave GB will pale into insignificance and will be no more than a European off island with the importance of Rockall. Our status in the world must have changed yesterday, however, because this morning he accused right wingers of hoping to start WW3 in Europe by leaving. 
As someone said of Cameron - was he lying last month, or is he lying now?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 May 2016)

Unlike some, I don't believe that the EU is a conspiracy. I think it was conceived with noble intent - to ensure peace in Europe. Unfortunately, the method of achieving this has a Fatal Flaw - it does not have a democratic mandate, and such a mandate has never been sought. With careful manipulation it appears that there is a veneer of democracy, but there actually isn't much. You can elect members of the European Parliament, but that has no real power or authority to make decisions.

At some point, the 'project', however well intentioned, starts to diverge slowly from the general will of the moderate majority. Nobody in any EU member state can vote to change the core decision-makers. I don't believe that those core decision makers have evil intent - indeed, I think most are decent and principled people. However, their decisions are not supported by popular democratic mandate - the real decision makers are appointed, not elected. 

There are from time to time riots organised by the far left, or the far right, but those are not really too much of a problem - the moderate majority doesn't get involved, even if some of them do have a sneaking sympathy for the point of view of the protestors. However, when the EU decision-makers go just a bit too far, and the moderate majority find that their views expressed through the ballot box are being ignored, what do they do? When democratic means of exerting the will of the majority don't work, what options are then open to the majority? No palatable ones.

We haven't quite reached that tipping point in the EU, but there are signs of disquiet in several countries. If the EU continues along it's arrogant path, ignoring the will of an increasingly ignored moderate majority - well, it's not going to end well, is it?

Had the EU been content to be an organisation based on close co-operation between independent sovereign nation states, I think it would have general support, if not always complete approval. The determination to ram together disparate states with no common demos into one super-nation means it is doomed to fail; the sooner it fails, the less damage will be caused.

Ignoring democracy in countries with a long attachment to it is a recipe for disaster. All the arguments about the state of the economy in 12 months' time, or whether foreign holidays will cost more, are just trivia by comparison.

I have to confess that I'm utterly baffled that so many supposedly intelligent politicians are seemingly so keen on the UK's EU membership. It may be because the EU is a nice, cosy club that works well for large organisations (major banks, for example) with the clout to lobby it in their interests, or because some politicians enjoy the idea of being 'in power' and see the EU as a handy fallback if they're voted out of UK office. Whatever.

Hence, my question earlier in the thread - who governs, in who's interest, and to whom are they accountable. That's the nub of it, for me.

(Edited to tidy up the first two paragraphs, which were somewhat garbled.)


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

I believe anyone reading Junckers reaction to the Austrian election (ignored by the BBC - no surprise, there) should agree with you. (I did say "should" not "would".)


----------



## woodpig (25 May 2016)

graduate_owner":3rgf9ltl said:


> By the same argument - if we leave the EU, will we able to re-join?
> 
> K



Yes, in a heartbeat. They want the £9 billion we pay in!

It's taken 30 years to be given the vote. If we stay in and things get worse we may have to wait another 30 years to vote again, if the EU allow it of course.

On balance the IN campaign have been telling more lies and used bullying and fear tactics so even if I had been on the fence before I'm inclined to vote OUT now.


----------



## MIGNAL (25 May 2016)

graduate_owner":1blpvjsm said:


> Another thing I don't understand is the suggestion that whilst we can change our government every 5 years, we will not be able to get out of Europe unless we vote to leave now. Why not? Cameron pledged to hold a referendum in his manifesto, so we have a referendum. Why could we not have another in 15 years time, even in 5 years time? What is to stop the next party leader from pledging another referendum if elected just like Cameron did? Is there yet another EU law that says member countries can only hold one referendum in any specified period, or in our lifetimes?
> 
> By the same argument - if we leave the EU, will we able to re-join? So if this is our now-or-never chance to get ouf of the EU then surely it is also our now-or never chance to stay in?
> 
> ...



Nothing at all to do with EU law. In fact it's an EU article that states that any member country can withdraw from the EU, article 50. I don't even think that a referendum is a requirement. Technically the withdrawal can be immediate, practically it's probably impossible. The withdrawal time scale is given as being two years, unless agreed otherwise.
If Cameron suddenly woke up one morning and decided he didn't want to be a part of the EU, providing parliament went along with that idea, I guess the UK would leave. I don't think a referendum or an election would be required. 
As for joining again. No doubt possible, maybe even probable but perhaps not automatic.


----------



## MIGNAL (25 May 2016)

woodpig":1nu37qps said:


> graduate_owner":1nu37qps said:
> 
> 
> > By the same argument - if we leave the EU, will we able to re-join?
> ...



Nonsense. The Daily Mail and other right wing press have been pushing lies about the EU. The difference is that they have been pushing these lies and scare stories not just for the referendum but for years, if not decades.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2016)

By the time we've been out for a few years there'll be nothing much left to rejoin.


----------



## No skills (25 May 2016)

I don't think we'd get out, not enough people will get off their buttocks and vote.
And if they did would it be rigged anyway... :lol: 
I think we have plenty of form for this, the constantly renewing stream of ignorant self serving dipsticks that we let run the country for years on end are proof enough of our apathy as a nation.

Interestingly (for me) I haven't spoken to one person around here that wants to stay in Europe, I haven't spoken to many as I'm fairly anti social  but still no one wants to stay in. Perhaps a reflection of this area that is high in imports and low in wages, who knows.


----------



## MIGNAL (25 May 2016)

I doubt we'll get further than 1 year out. After an out vote floppy hair will be PM. After a year of trying to negotiate trade deals etc. floppy hair will just decide that in the best interests of the country the Norway route is the best solution. Out but back in, effectively. 
I haven't met many who to intend to vote in. Mostly they are the out lot. On the internet forums it's even more stark, unless the in lot are keeping quiet. One thing I do know, if you stripped the immigration issue out of this vote the result would probably look 75 : 25 for in.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

Mignal - if the EU was the EEC as it was sold to the people, it would probably be about 90% for in. If we were to end up as Norway, would that be so terrible? They have to comply with EU laws to export to the EU (they have no say in the EU - but but we have next to none) but any Country has to comply with the laws of any Country they export to. China and the USA can't export to the EU without meeting its standards. At least then the 94% of British companies who do not export to the EU wouldn't have the cost of compliance. I know from the industry I worked in the cost and the hassle of compliance is huge, the laws are often non productive and occasionally absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## BearTricks (26 May 2016)

I think that out is a foregone conclusion, whether I agree with that or not.

The fact is that younger voters aren't turning out as much as they should, partially out of voter apathy and partially because they're busy trying to claw their bank accounts out of a ditch due to the myriad of recent policies that have been introduced with the effect of grinding social mobility to a halt. I know a few people who didn't get chance to vote last time around since they were too busy working overtime to get to the polling station.

I think that for the older generations and the unemployed, people who can spare the time to research (Or confirm biases by only taking in information that solidifies their beliefs) and actually get out to the polling station at their leisure, out is a foregone conclusion. There's an indisputable crossover in the venn diagram of these groups, and xenophobics. I'm not saying it's everyone, but most elderly people I know in my post-industrial mining town are pre-occupied with the threat of immigration, and most unemployed are under the impression that immigration is stopping their progress. Add to that people from these groups who've done their research and decided on out, and I don't think it looks good for the in crowd.

I doubt that out will make one iota of difference to quality of life. Any EU rules and regs that we do away with will be replaced by something else; someone will jump in and fill the gap with their own agenda, or looking to line their own pockets. It really surprises me how much the ruling elite have done away with the thin veil of working towards the common good these days. It's like they can't be bothered pretending they care, or that they think everyone outside Cameron's incestuous inner circle is too stupid to see what they're up to. The house of commons, although it has always been akin to a playground, has turned in to something even more pathetic. Labour can't get a word in without smirking front benchers from the other side, and desperate fringe tories jeering for attention more than anything.

And I'm not even a Corbyn supporter. I think they probably need someone like him, just not him. Boris, on the other hand, is an ex-pro EU man who saw a chance to fast track Tory leadership and maybe become Prime Minister by pretending to support something he didn't believe in 18 months ago. My loathing of Cameron, although more so Osbourne and Hunt, and the complete disrespect they have for my generation's future wants me to vote out, but my liberalism and distrust of Boris want me to vote in. Ordinarily that would be enough for me to throw away my vote all together but I can't shake the feeling that this might be somewhat important.

Funny how this has been used to mask things like the privatisation of student loans through an illegal breach of contract, and the (attempted) destruction of the NHS. Thankfully the second didn't happen without a fight. I sometimes thing there's some kind of collusion going on somewhere, without venturing too much in to conspiracy theory.


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

phil.p":izgpho1i said:


> Mignal - if the EU was the EEC as it was sold to the people, it would probably be about 90% for in. If we were to end up as Norway, would that be so terrible? They have to comply with EU laws to export to the EU (they have no say in the EU - but but we have next to none) but any Country has to comply with the laws of any Country they export to. China and the USA can't export to the EU without meeting its standards. At least then the 94% of British companies who do not export to the EU wouldn't have the cost of compliance. I know from the industry I worked in the cost and the hassle of compliance is huge, the laws are often non productive and occasionally absolutely ridiculous.




You forgot another rather important factor. They have to accept free movement. I also believe they have to pay in.
Accept those and there's nothing left for the 'out' lot to rally against. I'm quite sure the Daily Mail will find something though.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 May 2016)

Norway is often stated, together with it's 'compliance with EU rules'. However, Norway is a free and independent sovereign nation, so if at any time it decides that the arrangements don't suit it, Norway can withdraw from them. (By the way - Norway pays a voluntary contribution directly to some Eastern European countries. It does not make any direct contribution to central EU funds - at least, according to some bod on Radio 4. I have to confess that I haven't actually checked that.)

The closer the UK becomes sucked into ever-closer union, the harder it becomes to disentangle itself. I know various politicians have claimed we have opt-outs for this or exemption from that, but when push comes to shove it seems we're more tied in than we were told. We were told very clearly that as we are not in the Eurozone, UK taxpayers' money would not be used to bail out Greece (actually, it was to pay to Greece so that it could then promptly pay it back to German banks, thus bailing them out - that's illegal under EU law, but the powers that be did it anyway), but in the end UK taxpayers' money was so used. We've been lied to and misled too often.

It may be that the referendum result is for remaining. If so, I don't believe that will be the end of the matter. UKIP won't just shrug their shoulders and melt away, indeed there may well be a surge in support for them. The EU, emboldened by an electoral endorsement, will go into full-ahead mode, enforcing ever more integrationist measures on the UK, and ignoring any dissent stating the Remain vote. That will gradually annoy more and more people. It may take a decade or more, but eventually a Westminster government will have to accept public pressure and seek a withdrawal.

That would be the best thing that could happen to Europe. As Phil pointed out, an EEC would have popular support. However, and arrogant and undemocratic integration of free nation states eventually won't. Better that integration is halted sooner rather than later, minimising the damage. The damage to Greece and the southern Mediteranian economies has already been bad enough.

Eventually, I think the UK will disentangle itself. If not this time, then eventually. We'd do fine without the EU (as indeed would most of the other countries in it). We have all the institutions of national and local government, we have defence services including the armed forces and security services, we have a long history of trading wherever we can, and we have close links with many other countries through the Commonwealth, the Anglosphere, NATO, the European Free Trade Area (which we'd remain members of - it's independent of the EU).

How would peace in Europe be kept without the EU? By NATO for a start, and by a collective memory. Peaceful and prosperous countries with active, functioning democratic government have very little incentive to engage in hostilities except in self defence, or in UN-mandated action to help others. Free trade and democratic government are a better bet than arrogant, undemocratic forced integration.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2016)

@ mind the goat, you said "Many people on this forum could be considered artists, maybe some are eligible."
The Eu grant funding system does not recognise woodworking as art apart from abstract sculpting but as manufacturing. Believe me after 5 years of various arts funding applications through the 18 different arts funds I've found within the EU each and every one of them has said the same thing and when you apply through the manufacturing and economic based funds you are told you are not a manufacturer but an artist as youwill only make one off pieces and less than 10 a year at that. Vicious circle


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 May 2016)

BearTricks":94yl0pa6 said:


> I think that for the older generations and the unemployed, people who can spare the time to research (Or confirm biases by only taking in information that solidifies their beliefs) and actually get out to the polling station at their leisure, out is a foregone conclusion. There's an indisputable crossover in the venn diagram of these groups, and xenophobics. I'm not saying it's everyone, but most elderly people I know in my post-industrial mining town are pre-occupied with the threat of immigration, and most unemployed are under the impression that immigration is stopping their progress. Add to that people from these groups who've done their research and decided on out, and I don't think it looks good for the in crowd.



I respect most of what you've written, and I think there's much truth in it, especially about the current difficulties for younger folks trying to make headway in life.

However, I would like to pick up the 'xenophobia' word. Immigration has been a significant factor in the UK, and recent figures suggest that there's been more of it than has been officially declared. Personally, I don't blame individual immigrants - it takes initiative to up sticks and go abroad for work, and if the opportunities are better for them in the UK than at home, then so long as they're playing by the rules, who can blame them? However - I do have a problem with the people who made the rules. The influx of workers has depressed wages and reduced the number of opportunities for ordinary UK working people, and because employers can take ready-trained immigrants, they have much less incentive to train local people. Because there are so many migrants, the housing shortage has been exacerbated - increasing the population without significantly increasing the housing stock will affect the housing market. 

Being concerned about the level of economic migration is not in itself xenophobic. I have great regard for Europe the geographical entity, for its peoples, its history, its cultures - my only problem is with the political entity, the EU.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

" I know a few people who didn't get chance to vote last time around since they were too busy working overtime to get to the polling station." - Bear Tricks
They work a fifteen hour day without a break? That's illegal. Besides that if that were the case and they didn't have intelligence to get a postal vote I'm glad they didn't vote.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

Norway probably doesn't doesn't pay immigrants social security, give them free medical care or house them. It wouldn't be much of an attraction for them. And no, I'm not remotely against immigrants, our area is full of Poles who only want to work and get on. The vast majority are top class people, better people than many of the indigenes. What I do object to is the system we operate that allows perfectly fit and able young people to populate the local housing estates, unemployed and breeding like rabbits at my expense because they don't fancy the jobs on offer much.


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Norway is often stated, together with it's 'compliance with EU rules'. However, Norway is a free and independent sovereign nation, so if at any time it decides that the arrangements don't suit it, Norway can withdraw from them. (By the way - Norway pays a voluntary contribution directly to some Eastern European countries. It does not make any direct contribution to central EU funds - at least, according to some bod on Radio 4. I have to confess that I haven't actually checked that.)
> 
> /quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

phil.p":353if67u said:


> Norway probably doesn't doesn't pay immigrants social security, give them free medical care or house them. It wouldn't be much of an attraction for them. And no, I'm not remotely against immigrants, our area is full of Poles who only want to work and get on. The vast majority are top class people, better people than many of the indigenes. What I do object to is the system we operate that allows perfectly fit and able young people to populate the local housing estates, unemployed and breeding like rabbits at my expense because they don't fancy the jobs on offer much.



That's hardly the fault of the EU or immigration. The rules are in place (have been for decades) in respect of looking for work and entitlement to benefits. Nothing to do with the EU. You can blame the English government if you wish.


----------



## mind_the_goat (26 May 2016)

phil.p":ev3adq6a said:


> they have no say in the EU - but but we have next to none


I'm curious to know how often you believe decisions on EU policy go against what the UK reps vote for? This has increase in the last years, I suspect due to UKIP voting against everything 'on principle', but that's the voters fault.



phil.p":ev3adq6a said:


> but any Country has to comply with the laws of any Country they export to


Only on the standards of the final product, very little control over how it gets produced, 



phil.p":ev3adq6a said:


> I know from the industry I worked in the cost and the hassle of compliance is huge, the laws are often non productive and occasionally absolutely ridiculous.


Well, yes, I can see this is a big problem, especially for smaller businesses. One might assume that many things defined in these standards are just common sense and don't need to be written down. There will always be some people/companies that take advantage of this though, to the detriment of those that do the sensible thing. Without rules there is nothing to stop this. I'm sure there are many rules which were created with the best intentions but do not apply, or even make sense when applied universally. You clearly have experience of this but I seriously object to the daily Express, and Boris spouting pineapples about straight bananas and energy efficiency regulations. Poorly drafted regulation is not solely a product of the EU commission, our own government are equally likely to get it wrong. We clearly need mechanisms to get these things fixed, there probably is something. One thing that has happened in democracies in the last few years is the increasing influence of grass roots campaign groups, these are having influence in the UK and are starting to influence the EU, this can only be a good thing. Commissioners will often only know something is wrong if someone bothers to tell them.


----------



## mind_the_goat (26 May 2016)

phil.p":3t6evmj9 said:


> Norway probably doesn't doesn't pay immigrants social security, give them free medical care or house them. It wouldn't be much of an attraction for them



Immigrants in Norway make up 16% of the population


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

MIGNAL":17umulrk said:


> phil.p":17umulrk said:
> 
> 
> > Norway probably doesn't doesn't pay immigrants social security, give them free medical care or house them. It wouldn't be much of an attraction for them. And no, I'm not remotely against immigrants, our area is full of Poles who only want to work and get on. The vast majority are top class people, better people than many of the indigenes. What I do object to is the system we operate that allows perfectly fit and able young people to populate the local housing estates, unemployed and breeding like rabbits at my expense because they don't fancy the jobs on offer much.
> ...



Certainly. I didn't say it was. All I said was that many of the job vacancies that attract them shouldn't exist in the first place - which as you say is our government's fault.


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

phil.p":1sl7n84h said:


> Norway probably doesn't doesn't pay immigrants social security, give them free medical care or house them. It wouldn't be much of an attraction for them. And no, I'm not remotely against immigrants, our area is full of Poles who only want to work and get on. The vast majority are top class people, better people than many of the indigenes. What I do object to is the system we operate that allows perfectly fit and able young people to populate the local housing estates, unemployed and breeding like rabbits at my expense because they don't fancy the jobs on offer much.



I think you are _probably_ wrong. You also seem to be confusing refugees and housing with immigrants coming in from EU countries. It's a very common misconception, no doubt reinforced by the right wing press.
Not sure about the social security (haven't checked) but Norway will certainly give me free health care if I were to go there and seek work. Don't forget, they have to comply with a great many of the EU rules/free movement etc.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

Norway would give you free health care because od reciprocal arrangements - why would a European Country without free health care have any arrangement to pay for its expats? You seem to have a paranoid dislike of the right wing press - you're not like one or two others here that only believe something if they've read it in the Grauniad, are you?


----------



## BearTricks (26 May 2016)

To clarify my comment about xenophobia: it seems to be a base level at which some people are deciding their vote. If there are two groups of people - one of which is uninformed but has vague ideas about dangerous folk from the East, and the other of which is uninformed but doesn't see immigration as necessarily dangerous, I believe that the former will be more spurred on to vote.

Another thing that worries me, aside from the potential of increased travel prices, is the fact that students from the UK can currently study for free in a number of EU countries because we are in the EU. This wouldn't be a major issue, but the government have just privatised student loans which is worrying to the point that that Martin Bloke from Money Saving Expert has hired lawyers to figure out exactly how illegal it is. With the higher interest rates, graduates now need to be earning £41k just to cover the interest. They have also pushed through plans to rate universities, and allow ones which achieve a certain rating to charge higher fees, potentially creating a bigger educational class divide. 

It worries me that this isn't just a vote for the EU, it's also a vote for Cameron or Boris.


----------



## Fitzroy (26 May 2016)

BearTricks":fm4gpedn said:


> This wouldn't be a major issue, but the government have just privatised student loans which is worrying to the point that that Martin Bloke from Money Saving Expert has hired lawyers to figure out exactly how illegal it is. With the higher interest rates, graduates now need to be earning £41k just to cover the interest.



I've read the same article. Privatising the loan is BS and should be investigated. The maths on having to earn 41k is flawed. The maths actually represents that if you pay off the minimum required, based on a sliding scale of income, you will pay off the entire loan if you earn more than 41k. However if you earn less than this you will only pay off part of the loan before it is written off after 30 years. You can always choose to pay off more than then minimum, preventing the loan growing, and minimising the total you pay back. In the example the loan interest was c. £175/month, if you are earning £41k per year your take home is £2500/month, i'f argue you should be able to budget £250/month to pay the loan down asap. The issue needs to focus on the (i)legality of the privatisation of the loan and increase in interest rate.

Sorry off topic but I hate it when articles spin things, especially when that spin dilutes an important message.

Fitz.


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

phil.p":2e1kktlm said:


> Norway would give you free health care because od reciprocal arrangements - why would a European Country without free health care have any arrangement to pay for its expats? You seem to have a paranoid dislike of the right wing press - you're not like one or two others here that only believe something if they've read it in the Grauniad, are you?



When they confuse housing, refugees and immigration I have a justifiable right to point out the obvious.
As for your comment on health care, it was a response to your own comment that Norway _probably_ does not give free health care to immigrants. It does. 
Note. According to the Daily Mail the EU have 'ordered Britain' to build more houses for immigrants. 
Amazing amount of powers that the EU has! You can believe it Phil. I'll arm myself with my BS detector.
Off to eat a bent banana!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

Did you see Paxman speaking to the EU spokesman on either the straight cucumber or bent banana law (I forget which, it doesn't matter) - the spokesman said it had never existed because it had been repealed. When Paxman pointed out that it must have existed to be repealed the spokesman said precisely, it never existed because it was repealed. I think we need bigger BS detectors to deal with the effluent that comes out of Brussels than we'll ever need for the Torygraph or the Mail. As a matter of interest if the EU is as good for us as it says it is - why, in 2014 did it need to spend 664 million Euros (a large % of them ours) on self promotion?


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

They probably have to spend that money to counteract the complete BS of the right wing press! 
Here you go, even Sky agree! 

http://news.sky.com/story/1266181/the-t ... s-debunked

Crikey. There are hundreds of such complete and utter BS stories. I guess the Daily Mail sit in their sumptuous offices dreaming up these stories. They know full well that they are complete BS but of course they also know that if you throw enough mud some of it sticks. Of course their readers will lap up anything thrown at them!


----------



## mind_the_goat (26 May 2016)

phil.p":elpi5w7d said:


> Did you see Paxman speaking to the EU spokesman on either the straight cucumber or bent banana law (I forget which, it doesn't matter) - the spokesman said it had never existed because it had been repealed. When Paxman pointed out that it must have existed to be repealed the spokesman said precisely, it never existed because it was repealed. I think we need bigger BS detectors to deal with the effluent that comes out of Brussels than we'll ever need for the Torygraph or the Mail. As a matter of interest if the EU is as good for us as it says it is - why, in 2014 did it need to spend 664 million Euros (a large % of them ours) on self promotion?



This is why the job of being a politician only attracts a very slim range of personality types. Rather than needing particular skills in industry, science, law, agriculture, finance etc, the biggest skill required is standing up to a press that is desperate to trip them up to get juicy sound bites. I used to like Paxman but when I listen to him now I just find him annoying, there is no depth to his interviews. He seems to ignore the answers, even when he gets one and keeps punching away till his opponent is knocked out. It takes a very strong personality to stand up to that, The interviewee will either go totally defensive and just keep repeating an answer, or lack of one, or will get flustered and say something stupid. Either way, Paxman wins and we learn nothing. 
A decent journalist would have just looked it up and reported what the regulation actually defined, it doesn't need opinion, it's written down. What the hell was the point of trying to get an EU official to admit the existence of a regulation on straight bananas, except for entertainment?


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 May 2016)

MIGNAL":3qtpj9bd said:


> They probably have to spend that money to counteract the complete BS of the right wing press!
> Here you go, even Sky agree!
> 
> http://news.sky.com/story/1266181/the-t ... s-debunked



Er, no they don't. The page says this:



Sky web page":3qtpj9bd said:


> The EC says the rules only apply to green, unripe bananas, and that the banana industry and national governments asked for such quality control regulations.



Which is _exactly_ what I said earlier, if you understand the EU coded language:

"The banana industry" - doesn't exist as they are not grown in the main part of the EU, however there *are* French external territories governed as France, which do grow them...

"... national governments asked for such quality control regulations." Guess which one.

And bananas are always imported GREEN: they ripen en route to the shops.



MIGNAL":3qtpj9bd said:


> ... They know full well that they are complete BS but of course they also know that if you throw enough mud some of it sticks. Of course their readers will lap up anything thrown at them!



A few are BS, but many are true - I wouldn't put the Commission above starting a few of the dafter hares itself, just to shame the gullible. The bananas thing was an attempt to stitch up the import business by the French, which failed. The cucumber thing was, I'd guess just a copy+paste job at some point. Again, as I said, from memory, entire paragraphs were identical between the two.

I also mentioned Martin Bangemann back in the 1990s trying to get all sorts of really repressive regs applied to motorcycles. He tried for on-tank airbags, and leg guards (think Mediaeval grieves), and he did at one point say in a speech he wanted bikes totally banned (but that never became an EU policysuggestion). Any members of MAG on here who remember the fun?

Oh, and don't forget landlocked Austria had its turn at the Fisheries Commissioner post.

And don't forget how much it costs to migrate the parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg every month, simply to keep the French happy.

And don't forget MEPs just sign for expenses and daily attendance without producing receipts. There was a covert video made of them turning up at the parliament on a Friday, signing in and then b*****ing off home at around 9am. There was a lot of fuss when it was all exposed so it might be reformed now, but that would have been despite MEPs, not because of them.


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":2zy3702c said:


> What the hell was the point of trying to get an EU official to admit the existence of a regulation on straight bananas, except for entertainment?



I find it very entertaining


----------



## MIGNAL (26 May 2016)

Did the EU ban bent bananas?


----------



## mind_the_goat (26 May 2016)

Eric The Viking said:


> "The banana industry" - doesn't exist as they are not grown in the main part of the EU, however there *are* French external territories governed as France, which do grow them...
> .[/quote
> 
> You missed out Spain the biggest producer, Italy and Greece.
> ...


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":196li07a said:


> Eric The Viking":196li07a said:
> 
> 
> > MIGNAL":196li07a said:
> ...



Good catch. That's what I was looking for.

Poor choice of words on my part - the vast majority are imported from outside the EU. 

I assume you're not defending it - the real question is why we need ANY sort of EU standard on fruit - aren't the public capable of making up their own minds in the first place? 

In any case, my basic point stands - it was a protectionist move dressed up as a quality standard.

I want shot of all that rubbish.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

The unfortunate thing is that no matter how stupid a story seems, if someone told me it had emanated from the EU I would probably believe it as they have come up with so many stupid rules and regulations in the past.
As for the rules for bananas - they were mostly introduced to favour French overseas territories as it worked against Carribean growers. Why we should be remotely concerned about the welfare of French overseas dependencies any more than they should worry two hoots about ours is beyond me. That one page alone is enough to make me want out. Europe's been going downhill for years and that sort of crapp is all they can be bothered with.
What the hell was the point of trying to get an EU official to admit the existence of a regulation on straight bananas, except for entertainment? Maybe he was attempting to get one to tell the truth?


----------



## mind_the_goat (26 May 2016)

phil.p":1tuf72gn said:


> The unfortunate thing is that no matter how stupid a story seems, if someone told me it had emanated from the EU I would probably believe it


Thanks, in no small part, to the media



phil.p":1tuf72gn said:


> As for the rules for bananas - they were mostly introduced to favour French overseas territories as it worked against Caribbean growers.


French oversea territories where ?
The EU has had import tariffs in place which favoured Caribbean growers, particularly from the windward Isles, many of which were Ex British territories. Seems unlikely the Banana standards were designed to benefit any country by the back door while no attempt was made to hide the front door protectionism. Also if the banana standards were to protect French territories, what are the other fruit standards for ?



phil.p":1tuf72gn said:


> What the hell was the point of trying to get an EU official to admit the existence of a regulation on straight bananas, except for entertainment? Maybe he was attempting to get one to tell the truth?


Which he completely failed to achieve


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2016)

My expectation is that those most misinformed about the EU will also tend to be misinformed about the date/location of the vote and the need to register, and will tend miss it - resulting in a massive vote for Remain!


----------



## davin (26 May 2016)

All I can say is that as an immigrant myself, my family are seriously thinking of going home. I have Finnish and British citizenship, my wife is Polish so my kids luckily have three passports.
I am fed up with constantly hearing that everything in this country is the fault of immigration, even this morning that right wing mouthpiece Nik Ferrari on LBC was trying to blame foreigners for the long delays on the M25 .
You hear and read it all the time, a constant drip feed of blame.the obvious culprit is the Daily hate Mail, and other right wing papers. Even in this thread I have read it, I wont paste them as I am not in the mood for an argument.
I have lived in this country long enough to know there has never been a glorious rosy time pre immigration that I can remember.
I do not want my kids feeling like second class citizens just because they are part "foreign".
Apologies if this is not a particularly concise political argument, rather an emotional outburst.


----------



## Fitzroy (26 May 2016)

We are all immigrants, just some have families that have been on our little green isle longer than others, which many people seem to think gives them a rite to tell everyone else to f'off! Work hard, pay yer dues, and do yer bit for society, if yer do then to stuff with what the rabble may think.

I also think that in part rose tinted spectacle syndrome is at play here. It is widely promoted that the 70s were the last great hey day, the era of my childhood and fond memories i have. The mind's eye of many people, me included, hark back to these simpler times pre-mobiles, pre-internet, pre-social media, pre spin culture, pre the buzz word sound bite frenzy world that we seem to live in now. I think there is some delusion that as soon as we all vote out everything will be perfect and all will be rosy once again. The world is a so much more complicated place than that now, with more political spin, big business lobbying and miss information, getting out of the EU will not fix this. A grass roots change in the political/financial system is needed, and yes perhaps this would be easier without being tied into the EU, but if people think this will happen because we leave the EU they are deluded.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

Jacob":229whxct said:


> My expectation is that those most misinformed about the EU will also tend to be misinformed about the date/location of the vote and the need to register, and will tend miss it - resulting in a massive vote for Remain!


You don't need to register for it.


----------



## Wuffles (26 May 2016)

phil.p":grxb1j6p said:


> Jacob":grxb1j6p said:
> 
> 
> > My expectation is that those most misinformed about the EU will also tend to be misinformed about the date/location of the vote and the need to register, and will tend miss it - resulting in a massive vote for Remain!
> ...



Well, you do if you aren't registered "to vote" at all.


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2016)

You need to be on the electoral roll. I shouldn't say this as I bet a few Brexiters aren't.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2016)

I bet a few small people aren't. I bet a few tall people aren't. I bet a few fat people aren't ...

Actually, it would seem more likely that people who are happy for unelected people in another Country to make their laws for them aren't registered.  Why would they need to be?


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

phil.p":we8q1bzb said:


> I bet a few small people aren't. I bet a few tall people aren't. I bet a few fat people aren't ...
> 
> Actually, it would seem more likely that people who are happy for unelected people in another Country to make their laws for them aren't registered.  Why would they need to be?


The EU does not involve having unelected people in another Country making our laws for us. There is a whole set of democratic processes in place, including the election of our own MEPs.
The worst thing we could do would be to elect MEPs who don't support the principles of the EU - then we really are handing over power.
It's appalling that these people talk the talk, take the large salary, the expenses , but do absolutely F.A. - thereby handing over power to other countries.
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=farage+attendance
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 60595.html


----------



## Benchwayze (27 May 2016)

It seems to me we ALL have reasons to stay in Europe (Not all personal reasons) and we'd all have advantages if we were to leave. The problem is too many people are worried about personal issues, rather than what is best for the country as a whole. So it's time to ask yourself what matters most to you. That's how I see it, and I have made up my mind. As for Boris and Dave; Boris has a certain charisma, but he can come across as a buffoon; Dave is a smart lad, but he always looks as if he needs to wipe his nose!


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Benchwayze":1pvnvbr0 said:


> I..Boris has a certain charisma, but he can come across as a buffoon; Dave is a smart lad, but he always looks as if he needs to wipe his nose!


Agree - except Boris really is a buffoon, it's not an act!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 May 2016)

Jacob":1m2higyg said:


> phil.p":1m2higyg said:
> 
> 
> > I bet a few small people aren't. I bet a few tall people aren't. I bet a few fat people aren't ...
> ...



Jacob - if you genuinely believe that (and I'm not sure whether you do or not, because I think you often post a load of cobblers just to wind people up) then you've been conned.

The decisions are made by Commissioners (appointed, not elected, and in no way accountable to the electorate), and most of the legislation is in the form of various regulations emanating from unelected bureaucrats. The European Parliament is just a veneer - it almost never holds the Commission to account in the way that Parliament holds governments to account in the UK. The entire edifice has one major aim, namely a United States of Europe (or whatever it ends up being called) and all major decisions are with that aim in mind. No European has ever been asked whether they would prefer to be a citizen of their country, or a citizen of the United States of Europe - thus, the whole thing is an undemocratic sham.

It was conceived with noble intent - maintaining peace in Europe - but the undemocratic means of achieving it mean that sooner or later, it will fail. The sooner it falls apart, the less damage will be caused.

A far better way to ensure peace in Europe is close co-operation between independent nation states, each controlling their own laws, currency and economy, but co-operating on matters of free trade (EFTA), defence (NATO), and any other matter thought mutually beneficial. Free, democratic, prosperous nations co-operating with one another have little incentive to start wars.


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

Jacob":20rfgh1r said:


> The EU does not involve having unelected people in another Country making our laws for us. There is a whole set of democratic processes in place, including the election of our own MEPs.
> The worst thing we could do would be to elect MEPs who don't support the principles of the EU - then we really are handing over power.
> It's appalling that these people talk the talk, take the large salary, the expenses , but do absolutely F.A. - thereby handing over power to other countries.



The E.P. does not propose legislation, the Commission does that, and they are CHOSEN, not elected. In any case there is a revolving door between the EP and the Commission - look at the list of EU presidents for example. And the EP uses proportional representation, here by party list, meaning you CANNOT in effect vote for an individual, only their party*. 

As someone I respect puts it, "Proportional representation puts in power people you can't get rid of."

The EP is just a fig leaf over something quite ugly.

E. 

*yes I know independents can stand here, but the deposit is £6000 (last time I looked), and you have to campaign over an entire region - effectively beyond the resources of an individual, even with good support. We had constituencies until the late 1990s, but the EU forced a change.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Read all about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... pean_Union


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 May 2016)

Jacob":atuz01bx said:


> Read all about it:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrati ... pean_Union



Sometimes, it's better to judge by actions and experience than by propaganda.

When Greece faced bankruptcy, there were two basic options - default on the loans made and start again (which would have meant dropping out of the Euro), or having severe austerity thrust upon them. The Greeks voted for a government advocating the former, but the EU imposed the latter on them - mainly to bail out German banks (the main lenders) and to save the Euro. The bailout money paid to the Greek government (so that they could promptly pay it to German banks as interest on their loans - the Greek people saw none of it) was created by the European Central Bank in direct contravention of European law.

When Italy voted in a broadly Eurosceptic government, the EU used its financial muscle (again) to install a technocratic government instead (an unelected one). It could do this because Italy's financial position was little better than that of Greece.

The EU has demonstrated plainly that it will use all means, legal or otherwise, to defend the Euro. If that means 50% youth unemployment in Spain, or the beggaring of ordinary Greek people, or the over-riding of elected government in Italy, then so be it. It is defending the Euro because it is an essential building block of a single European state. 

All that is very plainly undemocratic.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

Greece would undoubtedly be better off had it never gone into the Euro - which it wouldn't have, had the EU not accepted figures it knew perfectly well to be false.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

In spite of all that: "Former Greek finance minister says those who are most critical of Europe have a moral duty to stay in Europe, fight for it, and democratise it"
I agree!! Also I don't deny that it has been (and will be) problematic. There's no magic wand - it takes time to make some things work well.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/o ... y-in-union


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

It takes time to make some things work well? They've been trying for fifty nine years. Depends what you mean by "work well" I suppose.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

Interesting item in The Times this morning -

Steps towards creating a European army are being kept secret from British voters until the day after next month’s referendum.

The plans, drawn up by the EU’s foreign policy chief, foresee the development of new European military and operational structures, including a headquarters. They are supported by Germany and other countries as the first step towards an EU army.

Similar proposals were vetoed by Britain in 2011, although there are concerns that a loophole could allow nine states to group together and bypass opponents.

To prevent the policy paper leaking and derailing David Cameron’s campaign to keep Britain in the EU, the plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britons vote.


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

Par for the course.

The initial "discussion paper" on _Corpus Juris_ described it as a "method of suppression" on the title page. Few here know about it - deliberately so, as it cuts across our common law rights such as _Habeas Corpu_s. Some of it is in place now: the EU arrest warrant is a fundamental part of it, requiring extradition without airing of any parts of the prosecution case, or even hearing them. UK judges are _required_ to uphold an EU warrant, as long as the paperwork is correct. The accused doesn't even find out the charges against them!

I've lost count of the debates, TV interviews, etc. where pro-EU British politicians denied CJ existed, and then when faced with the evidence, denied that it had any effect on British legal processes. Kenneth Clarke was a serial offender in this, and yet he became lord Chancellor! 

Here's what the original proposal called for. To the best of my knowledge these objectives haven't been modified in any significant way. Here's the headline list from the San Sebbastian 1997 seminar, updated and confirmed in Tampere Finland in 1999:

Corpus Juris will:

Introduce a single legal area with the European union
Introduce a European Public Prosecutor ("EPP") with national public prosecutors being "under a duty to assist" him or her (Article 18.5)
There will be a "Judge of Freedoms" whose function is ostensibly to protect the citizen’s rights, which however do not include the right to demand that evidence be produced. This means, of course, that an enforceable arrest warrants can be granted without there actually being any evidence at all, since there is no right to verify it at that stage.
A European Warrant of arrest shall be issued by a national judge on "instructions" of the EPP, and any police force in any member State can be required to enforce it.
A suspect can be imprisoned without charge for 6 months, renewable for a further 3 months without any limit to the number of renewals
 The ‘trial’ shall be heard by professional judges, specifically without "simple jurors" or "even lay magistrates" (a clear and specific reference to the British trial system where the crucial decisions are taken by ordinary people)
An accused can be retried on the same charge if found innocent (i.e. the prosecution can appeal against an acquittal)

Europol was created to be the strong-arm part of this. Today, Europol officers have:

Diplomatic immunity in the UK
The right to routinely carry guns here and throughout the EU
The right to demand assistance from local constabularies
The right to arrest and deport without British due process (see EU arrest warrant above).

It's not just a superstate being created, but a police state. The fact that it's being introduced piecemeal has distracted the press, who should be holding people to account over it: "What plan? You're being ridiculous!" is the way most questions have been met. couple that with the way yhe EU treats whistleblowers (discussion passim) and you can see where this is going very clearly.

And yes I know it's _nominally_ about addressing fraud in the EU. But I also know how the game is played. You boil a frog by heating the water slowly, so it doesn't suspect anything until finally it's cooked.

E.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 May 2016)

Strewth.

That's far worse than I suspected.

Who governs? In who's interest? Accountable to whom?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

"“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”
Jean Monnet

I think he got it right.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Paranoia big time. 
We are part of the process of developing the EU and our MPs and MEPs are in there making decisions and voting on them (except the UKIP slackers getting a free ride and doing nothing) and if the worst comes to the worst we can drop out altogether.
There may well have been many unacceptable proposals brought to the table, and weird agendas - but thats how democracy works. They get rejected - in the end we decide via the democratic process, or pull out.


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

That's a vital quote. I note how the "remain" camp have kept the Brexit lot on the back foot by forcing the discussion to stay on economic issues, real or imaginary. 

I blame the Brexiteers - some of the leading players are narcissistic idiots. They could have run a proper campaign, but thatr would have required cooperation and coordination, and a bit of anticipation. Two days in a room with post-its and a whiteboard would have done it. One does wonder if some have been arm-twisted into making a lot of noise and fuss, whilst actually being deliberately ineffective.

For me it was never about economics, although those arguments on the remain side just don't stack up* either. 

You only realise how valuable free speech, democracy and accountability are when they're gone. Ask anyone from the former Soviet bloc, or China. We're very close to having all the apparatus in place, now.

E.

*Prof. Tim Congdon's article on the subject. Congon was formerly UKIP's economics spokesman, but I'm not sure what academic post he now holds (if any).


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

Oh and Jacob, Corpus Juris has NOT been rejected. It is in the process of being implemented.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

"There may well have been many unacceptable proposals brought to the table, and weird agendas - but thats how democracy works. They get rejected ...
Nowhere near often enough.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":1ue7lc6u said:


> .... I note how the "remain" camp have kept the Brexit lot on the back foot by forcing the discussion to stay on economic issues, real or imaginary.


Not so - most of the remain argument tends to be ideological and looking to the future


> ...
> 
> For me it was never about economics,


Nor me. In any case economic arguments coming from Osborne and co are totally unconvincing


> You only realise how valuable free speech, democracy and accountability are when they're gone. ....


They haven't gone and they aren't going anywhere. The only real prob with free speech is the domination of the media by the right - many of them super rich non dom tax dodgers etc. Luckily most of us can see it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

Idealogical it might be, but the remain camp is looking to the future? :lol: Best joke of the day so far. The future sure as hell isn't the EU.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

" The only real prob with free speech is the domination of the media by the right ..."
No one forces anyone to buy a right wing newspaper - they sell because people wish to read them. I am forced to buy a Guardian ... because the BBC is the biggest single consumer of Guardians and I am forced to pay the BBC (as I wish to watch freeview channels). That's domination.


----------



## Fitzroy (27 May 2016)

I feel it is about time someone mentions Hitler and invokes Godwin's Law bringing this 'discussion' to an end.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

June 24th


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

phil.p":808zb34u said:


> Idealogical it might be, but the remain camp is looking to the future? :lol: Best joke of the day so far. The future sure as hell isn't the EU.


I meant "idealistic" not ideological. Slight difference!
In spite of the massed facts and rumours going around I think few on either side have the resources to base a decision on them alone, and we are all going by gut feeling.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Fitzroy":1ruqx60n said:


> I feel it is about time someone mentions Hitler and invokes Godwin's Law bringing this 'discussion' to an end.


We've had Hitler all ready. Been and gone, you must have missed him! :lol: 

post1058840.html?hilit=hitler#p1058840


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

Jacob, I assume you already know that the European Coal and Steel Community, now absorbed into the greater EU, was lifted in large part by Schuman in 1946-7 from Funk's 1942 "Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft", published when he was head of the Reichsbank. The foreword was by Hunke, of the Nazi propaganda ministry. 

The document was in essence the master plan for the post-war reconstruction of Europe (_but the Nazi one_).

Years ago, at an antiquarian book dealer I saw what I believe to be a genuine, original copy of the bound minutes of the conference (several volumes), which led to the published document (there are probably more copies of the First Folio in existence!). 

My technical German is terrible however, and I can't vouch for this translation (and it looks to be significantly truncated):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/lee.riley/Notices/EWG.pdf

[edit] 
See also: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hunke#Die_europ.C3.A4ische_Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft0
(auf Deutsch), but it's about the political philosophy Hunke brought to the table, not the proposal itself.
[/edit]


The ECSC, incidentally, is one reason why we have lost our mines and blast furnaces. Under the EEC command economy (see Schuman), other countries were designated coal and steel production areas (France was agriculture). Its structures were absorbed into the EU several treaties ago. We are not a designated country for coal and steel production.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":238ykfgo said:


> .....
> The ECSC, incidentally, is one reason why we have lost our mines and blast furnaces. .....


Not so. The mines were closed by Thatcher.
They are entertaining all these plots and sub plots - a bit like a James Bond movie with all the strings being pulled by evil maniacs (the last of the Nazis :shock: :shock: ) from a subterranean control centre somewhere in Europe. 
The more I hear them the less I believe them!

"Years ago, at an antiquarian book dealer I saw what I believe to be a genuine, original copy......." good start to a historical/spy novel!!


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

Feel free not to check my references (again), but please stop suggesting all this is fantasy.

Which one of us is afraid of confronting facts?


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":1pkndyoa said:


> Feel free not to check my references (again), but please stop suggesting all this is fantasy.
> 
> Which one of us is afraid of confronting facts?


No fear - it's not "the facts" but your picturesque and imaginative i_nterpretation_ of the facts which I think is open to question!

I must put Funk's 1942 "Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft" on my reading list!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

Not so. The mines were closed by Thatcher? More were closed by Wilson.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

phil.p":3vkkuue7 said:


> Not so. The mines were closed by Thatcher? More were closed by Wilson.


http://leftfootforward.org/2013/04/tory ... -thatcher/

Basically to destroy union power, in her own words: "so we could tame the militants"


----------



## Eric The Viking (27 May 2016)

You do read a lot into stuff, Jacob. 

Of course the Ridley plan existed; of course the Tories wanted revenge for Heath (some of us just wanted revenge aimed at Heath, but that's another story); of course Scargill and Thatcher did more damage than anyone else, but _the fact remains the European plan called for coal production in Germany and Belgium, not the UK._

Schuman envisioned a command economy for the whole of Europe, as did Funk et al before him. The Nazis didn't have 'Socialist" in the title for nothing. They hated the communist Russians for racist reasons, but ideologically had a great deal in common, love of command economies being but one aspect. 

The Euratom treaty, incidentally, still today has a separate legal validity nominally independent of the EU (it was the third original pillar, along the ECSC and the Common Market). 

I haven't done enough research on it, but (and this is speculation) i'd make an educated guess that it has something to do with us apparently being unable to build Hinkley "C" ourselves, instead being beholden to a French-government-owned company. 

The fact remains that we passed competency for governing strategic civilian nuclear activities from Westminster to Brussels, at Maastricht. The revised Euratom treaty is listed/cited as an appendix to Maastricht, although not merged into the main treaty (I have a copy), although I think we probably effectively signed up in 1972, at the outset of our EU adventure.

It's the _Acquis communautaire_ in action.

E.

But as you say, I'm just a wild conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2016)

Jacob":18zk64qi said:


> phil.p":18zk64qi said:
> 
> 
> > Not so. The mines were closed by Thatcher? More were closed by Wilson.
> ...



The first response was interesting.


----------



## Jacob (27 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":1d9n3btv said:


> ......i'd make an educated guess that it has something to do with us apparently being unable to build Hinkley "C" ourselves, instead being beholden to a French-government-owned company. ......


The plot thickens! 
Jolly cunning these johnny foreigner! (Or Fritzs :lol: ).
Simpler explanation is the tory policy to outsource everything because of the theory that private businesses are more efficient than state. Luckily we have an efficient state enterprise (albeit French) to step in where we have failed, helped by a communist dictatorship - probably involving deep plotting by Fu Manchu and Dr (Professor) Moriarty.












Little do they know - we have in place our secret agent 008* (just when you thought it was safe to come out of the gents :shock: )






*Licensed to kill a swift half every now and then.


----------



## mind_the_goat (27 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":8ylnxnqi said:


> . We are not a designated country for coal and steel production.


We were not part of the treaty so had full control of our own industries.


----------



## devonwoody (28 May 2016)

Here is a new track to follow. Conspiracy idea.

http://www.tradersadvocate.com/pages/or ... 0k9z3nSk9i


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 May 2016)

Interesting, DW. The polls tend to say that our young people will keep us in, but my friend is a GP who deals with hundreds of them told me the other day that the vast majority of the young people he'd chatted to about it were definitely for out. My wife is undecided and my uncle and my daughter (she still has the starry eyed optimism of youth) pro but I can't think of anyone else I know that wishes to remain.


----------



## Eric The Viking (28 May 2016)

mind_the_goat":1ag49fmu said:


> Eric The Viking":1ag49fmu said:
> 
> 
> > . We are not a designated country for coal and steel production.
> ...



Not so. Google how we "donated" our fishing grounds, the most productive in Europe, to Spain and Portugal. Hint: it all happened <24 hours before we signed the treaty of Rome, and reduced our fishing industry to less than 1/10th of its former size. Because of quotas we also pretty much stopped exporting our own fish (most of the catch from our waters couldn't be landed here) and left it for others to take away. They are still our waters, by the way - the international law of the sea wasn't changed by Heath's treachery*.

Similarly the lunacy of milk quotas, protectionism for tiny French "farms." I know someone whose daughter used to drive a milk tanker cross-channel, _importing_ milk to the UK, where we have the best stock and most productive dairy farms on the planet.

I say "Google" because certain participants on this thread think I'm just making stuff up. 

Regarding the ECSC, I'd have to check, but even if we didn't accede to it in 1972 (1.1.73 to be pedantic), we did at Maastricht, as then the two entities, EC and ECSC, were merged. 

As I said earlier, only Euratom still has independent legal identity, but that is nominal. For all practical purposes, it is also administered by the EU.

E.

*More Googling - find the text of Lord Kilmuir's legal advice to Heath, _from 1961_. IIRC, K. was a Law Lord at the time or a government law officer (can't remember what Heath was doing). EIther way, the advice had (has!) serious legal weight. It is proof Heath lied to the Commons (and the rest of the nation) by claiming at the time there was no loss of sovereignty - he was told unambiguously. Wilson did essentially the same thing (lied) in the run up to 1975, in the governmental referendum leaflet, although it was an even more boldfaced lie than now (Cameron's little booklet). There are other governmental papers of the time (released a decade or more ago under the 30-year rule), where exactly how to deceive the voters over the matter of sovereignty was discussed quite overtly. They were nothing if not hubristic.

[edit]
I should mention something else important, too: The treaties are actually a matter of last resort, and NOT the day-to-day "operating manual" for the EU. It goes like this: 

1. An EU bureaucrat decides some government's behaviour (or expected behaviour) isn't in the EU's interests, so there is a phone call to that country's PM or equivalent, "suggesting" a change of tack would be appropriate, _in the interests of the Community_. "We wouldn't want to have recourse to the Treaties now, would we?"

So _de facto_ control is exercised, without there being anything on paper. If that is ignored...

2. Letters are exchanged (I'd expect that would initially involve govt. law officers, as they would be called on to advise ministers, and reminding them of our treaty obligations first, informally, of course, would be sensible, but I'm speculating).

3. Last resort is a case at the European Court. That, is, by its own constitutional documents,** bound to find in favour of further European integration, so normally (and correctly by its terms of reference) it will find in favour of the Commission. The "judges" are political appointees, and in the past have been politico-bureaucrats, even with few legal qualifications. Anyway, no government wants to get to this stage and be humiliated by the EC (we are, occasionally, a noisy exception to this!), so they cave.

You can see all this with the fall-out from the banking crisis and Greek debt, etc. Maastricht and Nice (don't have copies of later treaties) both contain clear and specific processes for dealing with excessive sovereign(!) debt incurred by eurozone countries, with penalties including suspension from participation in EU institutions, should "reforms" not happen. There were strict rules about the limited nature of ECB intervention, written warnings (from the Commission to the naughty country), etc. These were all ignored during the euro crisis because of the political momentum to prevent the euro failing (it still will, in due course). They even managed to stiff Osborne (who is an silly person, by the way), for a huge loan (which we borrowed to get ourselves, so we could then hand it to German banks to pay for Greek profligacy!). 
[/edit]


**The apparatus for setting up the European Court is in the treaties (NOT the European Court of Human Rights - that belongs to an entirely different setup, nominally nothing to do with the EU at all).


----------



## devonwoody (28 May 2016)

phil.p":1dfjgr2v said:


> Interesting, DW. The polls tend to say that our young people will keep us in, but my friend is a GP who deals with hundreds of them told me the other day that the vast majority of the young people he'd chatted to about it were definitely for out. My wife is undecided and my uncle and my daughter (she still has the starry eyed optimism of youth) pro but I can't think of anyone else I know that wishes to remain.



Depends I think where is surgery is located. :wink:


----------



## RogerS (28 May 2016)

One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2016)

RogerS":3n3bjd5y said:


> One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.


Saves enormously on foreign aid. In any case sending/spending money offshore is very big business compared to which your migrants £11bn will be peanuts and not even feature in the Panama papers.
If exporting wealth is to be restricted it should apply to all not just a few poor agricultural workers.

Good luck to them and welcome, say I.


----------



## RogerS (28 May 2016)

Jacob":2ukrlcy2 said:


> RogerS":2ukrlcy2 said:
> 
> 
> > One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.
> ...


OK..here's the thing. Folk have been asking for facts. I've given some together with the source. So please - extend us the same courtesy and provide a link to any source that supports this assertion.

Responses such as 'It's obvious' or 'Google it yourself' are discourteous to the forum. 

Failure to provide any concrete evidence means that your response has to be filed, sadly, under 'Further meanderings of Chairman Butler'


----------



## Jacob (28 May 2016)

google it yourself.
is obvious innit?


----------



## RogerS (28 May 2016)

Jacob":3u9hms7d said:


> google it yourself.
> is obvious innit?



Oh dear.......


FAIL !!


----------



## RobinBHM (28 May 2016)

Without checking any sources my gut feeling is that migrant workers are mostly from eastern europe and not locations where forrign aid goes.

Of course migrant workers that work here legally are paying UK taxes even if they are sending money home. 

I dont actually see how this negatively affects our economy, after all if the migrant workers were not working in the UK then the money wouldnt be generated anyway -if it was generated then that probably assumes those jobs would need to be filled by uk workers, which given the low unemployment here is not realistic.

Migrant workers must spend some money here otherwise there wouldnt be so many Polish shops  I like looking around our local Polish shop, its like beinh on holiday. Best place to get authentic Kabanos sausage.

.......a quick check shows foreign aid includes pakistan, ethiopia, bangladesh, nigeria.


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2016)

In the first quarter of 2015, just over three million EU-born people lived in the UK - approximately 1.9 million of which were employed in the UK.

Over recent years, EU immigration into the UK has increased, while non-EU immigration has stayed relatively stable.

Between June 2010 and June 2015, non-EU immigration has fallen by eight per cent, but EU immigration has increased by 51 per cent. This has been partly driven by the introduction of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, according to Migration Observatory figures.

In 2015, according to the ONS, there were 340,000 returning British citizens, 1.1 million non-EU citizens and 1 million EU citizens.


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2016)

They come here because there is work to do - we have very low levels of unemployment. 
In the process they do the work of providing goods and services, they pay taxes. 
We want these things - they enrich the country. 
We are lucky to have them.
Immigration is generally a net gain to the receiving country and a loss to the ones left.

The Brexiters probaly think immigration is their strongest card but as it comes under closer scrutiny and facts are bandied about, rather than paranoid anxieties, it will not carry much weight. Leaving Brexit with nothing much to go on!


----------



## lurker (29 May 2016)

I have no problem with those who come to work, but there are also rich pickings for the crooks and seemingly no risk of retribution.
In fact the authorities seem to be so risk averse when it's comes being accused of racism they all appear to immune where a uk born person is not.


----------



## MIGNAL (29 May 2016)

Yeah but we export our crooks to the south of Spain. Kind of like a balance of crook payments.


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2016)

MIGNAL":2a2clrad said:


> Yeah but we export our crooks to the south of Spain. Kind of like a balance of crook payments.


 :lol: 
In any case the biggest crooks are the dodgy super rich foreigners buying up London property and keeping it empty. They have far more effect on the quality of our lives (through cranking up house prices) than a few dodgy pick-pockets from the east, and the government is basically on their side.


----------



## woodpig (29 May 2016)

RogerS":3pjl2dzr said:


> One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.



Agreed, I've been saying this for years.


----------



## Eric The Viking (29 May 2016)

Please forgive if this was posted earlier... also if you hate Paxo on University Challenge (the Domestic Controllwer shouts at the TV and insists he has a pro-Oxbridge bias, but that's largely because Bristol have been pants for the last few years. My own _alma mater_ never makes the cut anyway, so I don't care!).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07c6n58/paxman-in-brussels-who-really-rules-us


----------



## MIGNAL (29 May 2016)

woodpig":7t5zddyf said:


> RogerS":7t5zddyf said:
> 
> 
> > One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.
> ...



How much can they actually send back? Probably 90% of them are on minimum wage with rent, food, travel and all manner of other lifes expenses to pay for. Doubt that they are 'off shoring' anywhere near what you think. Maybe that £11 bn figure is skewed by some very rich immigrants sending money back. You know, Premier league footballers earning £50K + per week, no doubt a few others who are very rich. £6- £8 per hour isn't going to leave a lot _to _send back for your average immigrant.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2016)

Bulgarians and Romanians here for less than two years can pay their income tax in their own Countries. That doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Jacob (29 May 2016)

Level playing field - all those brits abroad would have to spend their earning there and not send any home. They'd just have to spend it all - fill up with bratwurst and beer before coming home.


----------



## finneyb (29 May 2016)

phil.p":3rchly9w said:


> Bulgarians and Romanians here for less than two years can pay their income tax in their own Countries. That doesn't make any sense to me.



I assume that you are correct; on similar point if they earn less than the UK tax personal allowance - because they are here for a few months do they pay tax? eg agricultural workers here for a season - I suspect they don't. I can't believe that HMRC are that smart to work with he home country tax office - although HMRC are upping their game - they know where my interest is earned without me telling them.

Anyway I'm for staying in , for the simple reason that I can see no clear and overwhelming reason why we should leave.
I trust the politicians in this even less than I trust the BMA after all the leaks about the Junior Doctors dispute - the BMA are the pits so that says a lot about the politicians in this referendum.

Brian


----------



## Jake (29 May 2016)

phil.p":2q2rr59l said:


> Bulgarians and Romanians here for less than two years can pay their income tax in their own Countries. That doesn't make any sense to me.



If that is so it is not an EU rule, as EU does not cover taxation. It might apply to social security (national insurance) under EU law but not income tax.


----------



## Eric The Viking (29 May 2016)

The EU does determine some taxation, but not (yet) income tax for ordinary people.

There is a special, lower income tax rate for EU politicians and bureaucrats associated with Brussels (flat 20%?), also tax-free shopping, along the lines of the old Soviet system for the Nomenclatura.

The EU determines the classes of goods to which VAT applies. There is also the ratchet, whereby a class of goods previously tax-free is taxed forever, after it has started to be taxed by a national government. So under the EU it is not possible to tax something for a short time and then return it to VAT-exempt status. In the UK there is a workaround: zero-rated categories of goods. These are technically VAT-rated (just at zero), to get round the rules.

I think (but am not sure!) that the introduction of insurance premium tax, energy supply taxes and those on some foodstuffs previously tax-exempt, were as a result of EU directives.


----------



## Jacob (30 May 2016)

RogerS":2wtg8dyh said:


> One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.


Good idea.
So a Brit working in Germany for example, could email home and say sorry dear I can't send you any cash the EU doesn't allow it you'll just have to sign on or take to the streets. 
Then he'd have to spend it all somehow (wild nightlife, restaurants, massage parlours?) and arrive home with nothing but the Ryanair allowance of 10kg of Bratwurst and some bottles of Schnapps tucked about in his clothing

Any more good ideas Roger, or is that it for the time being? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

I've been reading the Bernard Connolly book. 
it's unreadable. it's just a long rant against the EU. 
It reminds me of climate change sceptic rants - they can't argue against the science so they have to attempt to undermine the whole thing as an evil plot with everybody involved having cunning devious alternative agendas.

39 Steps meets Riddle of the Sands plus Fu Manchu, Goldfinger, etc etc


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

It's just a long rant against the EU? "The Rotten Heart of Europe" - What did you expect - paeans?


----------



## Jake (31 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":3gmsjsd6 said:


> The EU does determine some taxation, but not (yet) income tax for ordinary people.
> 
> There is a special, lower income tax rate for EU politicians and bureaucrats associated with Brussels (flat 20%?), also tax-free shopping, along the lines of the old Soviet system for the Nomenclatura.



Like most international organisations or supranational organisations, they get immunity from domestic (Belgian) tax except most are just plain tax exempt. Eurocrats pay a variable rate up to 45% to the EU budget.



> The EU determines the classes of goods to which VAT applies. There is also the ratchet, whereby a class of goods previously tax-free is taxed forever, after it has started to be taxed by a national government. So under the EU it is not possible to tax something for a short time and then return it to VAT-exempt status. In the UK there is a workaround: zero-rated categories of goods. These are technically VAT-rated (just at zero), to get round the rules.I think (but am not sure!) that the introduction of insurance premium tax, energy supply taxes and those on some foodstuffs previously tax-exempt, were as a result of EU directives.



There are some rules around VAT categories yes, because otherwise that could be used to distort the market.

What none of this has anything to do with is whether Romanians can avoid paying UK income tax which if true (cba to look it up) would have to be the result of a domestic govt decision.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

phil.p":365k2n4a said:


> It's just a long rant against the EU? "The Rotten Heart of Europe" - What did you expect - paeans?


I hoped for a carefully set out and reasoned argument!
TBH I didn't get very far - the very long ranting intro was enough.


----------



## lurker (31 May 2016)

Jacob":31dao7u1 said:


> phil.p":31dao7u1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's just a long rant against the EU? "The Rotten Heart of Europe" - What did you expect - paeans?
> ...



Only to be expected
You have made your mind up (nothing wrong with that by the way!) 
Also you have "form" in having a unbending opinion that you are always right (nothing wrong with that either)
And you go on and on and on :roll:


----------



## Eric The Viking (31 May 2016)

Jacob":tsegbcia said:


> phil.p":tsegbcia said:
> 
> 
> > It's just a long rant against the EU? "The Rotten Heart of Europe" - What did you expect - paeans?
> ...


I agree that is not an easy read. But that has a lot to do with the level of detail, and the historical analysis, which is important.

What Connolly lays bare, is the political, quasi-Fascist nature of The Project. At the time he wrote, it was occult, as the proponents were pushing an "economic" argument for the Single Currency.

Obviously, there isn't one (there never was), but the Euro persists, as without it there will be no European state. With hindsight, "Black Wednesday" was a cheap price to pay for escape.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":252qmxxs said:


> Jacob":252qmxxs said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":252qmxxs said:
> ...


But reading between the lines of the anti polemic ("occult", "quasi Fascist" et al) there actually are good simple economic arguments for the single currency, and, of course, arguments against. 
They don't get heard when someone is shouting and tub thumping, Connolly style.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

Jacob - try Europe on 387Million Euros a day, if you find Connolly depressing. I've yet to hear of anyone publishing a book about the good points of the EU ... mind, it would probably go in the same category as the Giant Book of Famous Belgians and the Giant Book of Italian War Heros.


----------



## RobinBHM (31 May 2016)

I use to think Tony Blair was keen on joining the Euro, Im glad it never happened.

I hope that the problems with Greece, Portugal and Spain will stop the Euro zone expanding any more.

As you say, Black Wednesday was a cheap price to pay.


----------



## Eric The Viking (31 May 2016)

Jacob":361a8sxj said:


> I":361a8sxj said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that is not an easy read. But that has a lot to do with the level of detail, and the historical analysis, which is important.
> ...



Occult means 'hidden'. The essence of Fascist ideology was "we know what's best for all of you, don't question it, just do it.". There are _political_ arguments for the Euro, but no economic ones (that I know of, that stand up to scrutiny). 

That latter was the whole point of Connolly's book. It is a detailed, well researched account of the occult single currency campaign and the associated politics.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

Eric The Viking":2844kryo said:


> Jacob":2844kryo said:
> 
> 
> > I":2844kryo said:
> ...


"Hidden" means hidden. "Occult" also means hidden but in a rhetorical kind of way with a hint of the unusual.
"Fascist" means far more than just "totalitarian". Emotive words get used when rational arguments are weak.


----------



## Eric The Viking (31 May 2016)

RobinBHM":3mrqtiui said:


> I use to think Tony Blair was keen on joining the Euro, Im glad it never happened.


In his now-infamous election address of 1983, Blair actually proposed leaving the EU.

I find it disturbing that LESC seem to have been muzzled by Corbyn during this campaign, but then they have been marginalized since the era of Kinnock.

E.


----------



## Eric The Viking (31 May 2016)

Jacob":27gm5nm9 said:


> "Hidden" means hidden. "Occult" also means hidden but in a rhetorical kind of way with a hint of the unusual.
> "Fascist" means far more than just "totalitarian". Emotive words get used when rational arguments are weak.



Well, I'd have said (and my intended usage was) that occult meant 'hidden, with an agenda'.

'Fascist' remains entirely appropriate - Google some of the early EEC protagonists' backgrounds. As Nazism, Fascism was the 'strange' child of largely Left-wing ideologies, which is one reason why Mussolini and Hitler made common cause so easily. 

I'll try to be less 'occult' myself in future -- it's obviously confusing.


----------



## Jacob (31 May 2016)

It's not confusing - it's rhetorical.
If I can't find my socks I don't say "they are occult".

The weakness of the Brexit argument is that it seems to be wholly rhetorical.

Nazism and fascism weren't left wing. I know "National Socialist" contains the word "socialist" but it means something entirely different when talking about, say, Labour party socialism.
This is why rhetoric is not a good basis for decision making. Nazism was extremely rhetorical but it wasn't socialist.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (31 May 2016)

If I can't find my socks I don't say "they are occult". No, nor do I . I say they're lost.


----------



## Eric The Viking (31 May 2016)

Jacob":2ssf8w8z said:


> It's not confusing - it's rhetorical.
> If I can't find my socks I don't say "they are occult".



I do - I blame the sock gnome. 

But seriously...



> Nazism and fascism weren't left wing. I know "National Socialist" contains the word "socialist" but it means something entirely different when talking about, say, Labour party socialism.
> This is why rhetoric is not a good basis for decision making. Nazism was extremely rhetorical but it wasn't socialist.



... I refer you to Götz Aly's excellent litle book, "Hitler's Beneficiaries"

It's ironic though, that you suggest the pro-independence arguments are purely rhetorical. 

You might want to look at Tim Congdon's stuff for macroeconomic arguments against being members of the EU: they exist, with cogency and detail. I concede my own are political, but they are not merely rhetorical, and I don't come at this from a merely Tory, right-wing perspective either (see LESC, above). 

I am interested in C20th political history, as I find it it informs the present. Everything we are, do, and debate in the political arena is based on what has gone before, and things are NOT merely what we want them to be. People do declare their motives too, including the protagonists in the EU (if you care to look for that). 

Forty years -- as in 'from the outset of our EU membership' -- do not appear to have achieved any significant reforms. Einstein famously stated that the definition of madness is to repeat an experiment expecting a different outcome.

But, as I seem to have awakened Godwin's ghost (again - sorry!), I'd better butt-out here.

E.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2016)

Jacob":25mmmtda said:


> RogerS":25mmmtda said:
> 
> 
> > One aspect that seems to be overlooked is that rather than spend the money locally to boost the UK economy, migrants send back to their home countries £11bn per year. [Source: International Fund for Agricultural Development. A UN agency based in Rome]. While I can understand why they are doing this, I'd much rather that money stay here and boost our local economies.
> ...


Now you're just being silly again and ignoring the point as per usual. Never mind. The fact that you are voting In is the best argument I have seen for voting OUT !!


----------



## woodpig (31 May 2016)

RogerS":2mpjzbbu said:


> The fact that you are voting In is the best argument I have seen for voting OUT !!



I think you're on to something there. He's probably increased the ukworkshop Brexit vote considerably! :lol:


----------



## devonwoody (6 Jun 2016)

We posted our postal vote today, so decision was made.


----------



## woodpig (6 Jun 2016)

I saw the Grey Man, John major on TV the other day and he sounded just as stupid as when he got kicked out as PM. I do wish these has beens would butt out.


----------



## Benchwayze (6 Jun 2016)

Your socks are occult when you can't find them? Maybe. All occult means is hidden. So they could be!


----------



## RogerS (6 Jun 2016)

My socks are holey 8)


----------



## RobinBHM (6 Jun 2016)

Im having a cull of holey socks as just bought nice new hole free ones. They dont make em like they used to, maybe socks are now made to some eu ISO-sock1000 standard.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2016)

Benchwayze":3u2vecvh said:


> Your socks are occult when you can't find them? Maybe. All occult means is hidden. So they could be!


"The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden". In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable", usually referred to as science."

Are my socks paranormal?

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

It's got a non-spooky meaning in astronomy 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation

but the nutters have been working on it 
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavats ... ph_058.htm


----------



## RogerS (6 Jun 2016)

RobinBHM":29k13xf1 said:


> Im having a cull of holey socks as just bought nice new hole free ones. They dont make em like they used to, maybe socks are now made to some eu ISO-sock1000 standard.



That's why all mine are the same colour!


----------



## Jake (6 Jun 2016)

RogerS":39qn0jvq said:


> RobinBHM":39qn0jvq said:
> 
> 
> > Im having a cull of holey socks as just bought nice new hole free ones. They dont make em like they used to, maybe socks are now made to some eu ISO-sock1000 standard.



I think they are made to a Chinese/Vietnamese/Bangladeshi/whoever has the least regulation and least care for workers, environment, supplier sources ... standard. Welcome to free unregulated enterprise. In fact, the sock could be a perfect model for how well unregulated private sector activity produces what the consumer wants.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jun 2016)

Or they could be made in Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, wherever, to the highest standards because I have paid good money for them to be made to top specifications ... because I can have them made how I want and where I choose to have them made?


----------



## Jake (6 Jun 2016)

phil.p":22qi2itx said:


> Or they could be made in Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, wherever, to the highest standards because I have paid good money for them to be made to top specifications ... because I can have them made how I want and where I choose to have them made?



Could you let me know where you buy your socks? Serious question as they are all so dire in what used to be the obvious place(s).


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jun 2016)

It doesn't matter where they come from as long as they are oversized to go over the ulcer dressings - and they last twice as long when you've only one leg.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Jun 2016)

Jacob":7tvvrmtn said:


> Benchwayze":7tvvrmtn said:
> 
> 
> > Your socks are occult when you can't find them? Maybe. All occult means is hidden. So they could be!
> ...



Yes Jacob. What you said; what I said. 'Occult' means 'hidden';.
As discussed with Colin Wilson on a number of occasions, THE occult refers to the paranormal. 

I had an occultation last night. I 'hid' my eyes and went to sleep! Although my spell-check insists there's no such word as occultation; even though it's in all of my astronomy books. (I.e. astronomy and not astrology... 8) )


----------



## RogerS (7 Jun 2016)

Benchwayze":284dzbh9 said:


> Jacob":284dzbh9 said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":284dzbh9 said:
> ...



100% spot on, John.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2016)

RogerS":b5a7taz1 said:


> Benchwayze":b5a7taz1 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":b5a7taz1 said:
> ...


What, you mean you people use the word "occult" when normal people say "hidden"?
Are some sort of cult?


----------



## RogerS (7 Jun 2016)

Jacob":1f3rz375 said:


> RogerS":1f3rz375 said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":1f3rz375 said:
> ...



Whatever, Jacob.

Frankly, your constant trolling is getting very wearisome. You do it on every single thread.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Jun 2016)

We people? 

Jacob, all I did was remark that the word occult is another word for hidden. Can't say I use it myself in that sense; not normally at least! 

You're not a fool Jacob, and I might enjoy discussion with you as long as I understand the subject; and you could resist behaving like an immature, irritating know-all. 

Is that un-hidden enough for you? 

Regards 

John


----------

